| Revision as of 08:44, 3 July 2013 editNicengelhart (talk | contribs)22 edits →I left this message on my talk page a couple of days ago.: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:43, 3 July 2013 edit undoHuon (talk | contribs)Administrators51,324 edits →I left this message on my talk page a couple of days ago.: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| == I left this message on my talk page a couple of days ago. == | == I left this message on my talk page a couple of days ago. == | ||
| Message for Span: you are making assumptions about the external links I left, by parroting guidelines that mention self-promotion and a conflict of interest without checking out if this is the case. What evidence do you have that this is the case? I have read your guidelines, which refers in most cases to using common sense. If you are taking on the role of policing other people's activity, then have the courtesy of discussing individual links with me before simply deleting all of my edits. And who is policing your activity? The Philosophy of Tramping section on my blog is primarily a showcase of work by published tramp writers (currently Victorian tramp writers), whose work has sadly been overlooked. It is not about MY Ideas, and is certainly far more thoroughly researched than the pages on this subject in Misplaced Pages, which appears very superficial on the subject indeed. In any case, a lot of published work (and I say this as a published writer) can be less accurate and verifiable than writing that appears in blogs and websites (which in any case are frequently linked to on Misplaced Pages, hence the reason for making the links I did). If Misplaced Pages sets out to embrace the digital age in which we live, then it needs to review it's attitude to other digital sources of information; otherwise it is in danger of going the same way as the current publishing industry—into obscurity. I would like this discussion monitored by an independent third party, as I note from your talk page that I am not the first person that you have vexed in this way. {{ |
Message for Span: you are making assumptions about the external links I left, by parroting guidelines that mention self-promotion and a conflict of interest without checking out if this is the case. What evidence do you have that this is the case? I have read your guidelines, which refers in most cases to using common sense. If you are taking on the role of policing other people's activity, then have the courtesy of discussing individual links with me before simply deleting all of my edits. And who is policing your activity? The Philosophy of Tramping section on my blog is primarily a showcase of work by published tramp writers (currently Victorian tramp writers), whose work has sadly been overlooked. It is not about MY Ideas, and is certainly far more thoroughly researched than the pages on this subject in Misplaced Pages, which appears very superficial on the subject indeed. In any case, a lot of published work (and I say this as a published writer) can be less accurate and verifiable than writing that appears in blogs and websites (which in any case are frequently linked to on Misplaced Pages, hence the reason for making the links I did). If Misplaced Pages sets out to embrace the digital age in which we live, then it needs to review it's attitude to other digital sources of information; otherwise it is in danger of going the same way as the current publishing industry—into obscurity. I would like this discussion monitored by an independent third party, as I note from your talk page that I am not the first person that you have vexed in this way. {{help me-helped}} In any case, this experience of engaging with Misplaced Pages has just convinced me that I am wasting my time on something frivolous that is taking me away from more serious concerns, so I will leave it at that. Nicengelhart (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :So you ask for third-party input immediately before you declare that you don't care either way? I'm not impressed. That said, I agree with Spanglej that those external links are not appropriate; the issue is not that it's a digital source but that it's a blog without editorial oversight, and that it's ''your own'' blog that you repeatedly linked to. If it's so thoroughly researched, how about improving the Misplaced Pages articles by adding your sources instead? ] (]) 11:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:43, 3 July 2013
 Archives | ||||||||
|
||||||||
To start a new section click here
Please note: If you leave me a message here I'll answer it here. If I write on your Talk page I'll look for your answer there
Deleted Edits
Hello, one of the information team has identified you as the person who deleted most of the recent edits I made. My original message to them is below. Can you please respond with an explanation. I recently added several external links to your entries on “Cynicism” (contemporary and philosophy), “Tramp”, “Hobo” and “Asceticism”. All my edits were taken down by someone within Misplaced Pages after I received a message to say that multiple changes indicates spamming! I have published an academic text on Cynicism that has been on Misplaced Pages’s “Cynicism (philosophy)” entry for about 8 years now: Ian Cutler, (2005), Cynicism from Diogenes to Dilbert. McFarland & Co. ISBN 0-7864-2093-6, and is still there.
All my new edits, under the username ‘nicengelhart’ were deleted from the sites. The reason for the updating is simply that I have not got around to updating the Misplaced Pages pages for some years and have a lot of new, and very relevant, information to add including philosophy journal articles on the subjects. The website I developed, ‘Cynical Reflections’ and an online book I’m writing ‘A Philosophy of Tramping’ < http://www.cynicalreflections.net/ > has a lot of information that I’m sure researchers interested in those subjects would find of useful. Furthermore, I receive no professional or financial benefits from this work, I’m retired! If it is so difficult and contentious to add information to Misplaced Pages, what is the point of it? Please can you reinstate the edits I made, or advise me how I can add them myself without them being zapped Nicengelhart (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I understand that your work may well be a sound and useful academic text. The removal of your links and books is not intended a personal slight. As Silk Tork explains, links repeatedly added to articles can be seen as promotional. Blogs are taken as unreliable sources because the as user-edited. Links and books written by the editor themselves can be a conflict of interest, which is discouraged. If you wish to explore this further please visit the external links, COI, reliable sources or spam noticeboards. I hope this helps. Thanks. Span (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thank you very much, Spanglej! I appreciate it! Best, Jpcohen (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Civil?
I'm nearly speechless. You dare to lecture me on civility after you've behaved in a completely uncivil manner by reverting disputed content that is currently in discussion for consensus on the article talk page? I don't care how much you don't like me or how pissed off you are at me, you are en experienced editor who should know better than to revert content I have promised to no longer revert while seeking consensus is blatantly hostile and completely uncivil. I can't think of any other good reason why you have circumvented the process of discussion and consensus than to intentionally disrupt to make a point. Look here for more on why what you did is just not acceptable. At the very least your action is poking; at the worst it is disruptive, pointy, and tendentious editing. Regrettably, you've put me in a place where I now have to report your actions. This message is also going on the article talk page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I left this message on my talk page a couple of days ago.
Message for Span: you are making assumptions about the external links I left, by parroting guidelines that mention self-promotion and a conflict of interest without checking out if this is the case. What evidence do you have that this is the case? I have read your guidelines, which refers in most cases to using common sense. If you are taking on the role of policing other people's activity, then have the courtesy of discussing individual links with me before simply deleting all of my edits. And who is policing your activity? The Philosophy of Tramping section on my blog is primarily a showcase of work by published tramp writers (currently Victorian tramp writers), whose work has sadly been overlooked. It is not about MY Ideas, and is certainly far more thoroughly researched than the pages on this subject in Misplaced Pages, which appears very superficial on the subject indeed. In any case, a lot of published work (and I say this as a published writer) can be less accurate and verifiable than writing that appears in blogs and websites (which in any case are frequently linked to on Misplaced Pages, hence the reason for making the links I did). If Misplaced Pages sets out to embrace the digital age in which we live, then it needs to review it's attitude to other digital sources of information; otherwise it is in danger of going the same way as the current publishing industry—into obscurity. I would like this discussion monitored by an independent third party, as I note from your talk page that I am not the first person that you have vexed in this way. | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
- So you ask for third-party input immediately before you declare that you don't care either way? I'm not impressed. That said, I agree with Spanglej that those external links are not appropriate; the issue is not that it's a digital source but that it's a blog without editorial oversight, and that it's your own blog that you repeatedly linked to. If it's so thoroughly researched, how about improving the Misplaced Pages articles by adding your sources instead? Huon (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)