I admire your patience.
“power-hungry editor thugs...” I totally admire your patience. Jimmy Wales has issues and the best two things about Wikipedia is 1) the code, and 2) the potential. Like television, Wiki is all potential and no solid information. Friends don’t let friends use Wikipedia. Just read one book a week or two a month and then the internet is just for fun.
Thank you.
I tend to find many examples on the editors talk pages full of legitimate complaints from others along the same lines... “I meticulously researched this...” with the same canned reply, “NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH !” There are countless articles with original research. You have to engage in original research often in order to present factual and up-to-date information !
Someone clicking on one of the pages I edited (and had the work deleted) will make the presumption a particular locale exists because it was designated a “populated place” 50+ years ago on a USGS survey. I dare to confirm this or refute this (more refuting) with research and it doesn’t pass muster. I confirm a place is a ghost town, nothing left, or empty buildings with roofs caved in, via photographic evidence from recent pictures and checked against old maps/topos and aerial views from 50 years ago (which showed back then there were inhabitants and buildings), but they won’t accept it and won’t work with me to define acceptable reference materials.