 :By your argument, since you do not know how to use Wikipedia, you should not edit at all.  Had you followed the guidelines, your article might have been up.  But no, you edited pages for closed discussions, leave messages on userpages, accuse people of being vandals that do not qualify according to site standards, and defend an obvious vandal only because he agrees with you.  Wikipedia is not about elitist and snobbish entitlement, it is about bringing forth sources that deal specifically enough with the subject, sources that enough editors have access to to verify, so that even someone not specialized in the subject can see the article is a reliable summery of those sources.  But no, you say that you are important and expect us to take you at your word with no evidence while you completely go against protocol. :If someone submits a paper to a journal and had it rejected, that person would not help their chances by writing their objection on the filing cabinet in which the rejection notification was stored.  That author would not do well to spray painting their objections on the editor's house.  That person would not help their chances by calling upon a former employee to argue his case who was fired the second day of work for showing up high and urinating on a secretary.  Throwing a tantrum like a small child would not help that author's chances either, especially if they did happen to be someone high up in a university because that is not how a professor is supposed to behave.    