Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winkelvi (talk | contribs) at 15:43, 30 June 2013 (→June 2013: sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

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)