User talk:HoboLow

Nomination of Matthew Wright (critic) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew Wright (critic) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Wright (critic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Seasick Steve. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Caution for repeated attempts to plug a new non-notable biography. Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Seasick Steve, you may be blocked from editing. GiantSnowman 20:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I am adding independently researched information, which balances the highly inaccurate Seasick Steve page. Everything I add is independently verified, as you can see, if you read the verifications. Why not compare the English Seasick Steve page with the Norwegian page (where Steve has lived for many years), which you will find agrees with my additions: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasick_Steve?

• It's not about doubting that the information is correct, but about blatant promotion (in this case for a new book and its author) not being allowed per Wikipedia's rules. Thomas.W ^talk 21:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The page as it stands is about 75% rubbish. Steve's name, age, date, and much of his professional life are wrong. How is that in keeping with Wikipedia policy? Why does it matter who adds the information if it is accurate? Everything I have added has verification, as you can see for yourself. I know from experience that Steve's friends try to suppress my research (it happens in all media forms) because his career has been recently built on these inaccuracies. By suppressing accurate information, you are collaborating in a shameful fraud of the public. Which of the statements I have made is not verified from a third-party source?

Quite a bit - but a lot of the sources you use are also non-reliable. GiantSnowman 07:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, HoboLow. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 20:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The information I have added is independently researched, and accurate, unlike what already exists on this page. It is fully verified. It is new research, which has been published, in a book, by a professional and reputable publisher. Surely one crucial purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect new research. I would appreciate it if you would spend some time acquainting yourself with the facts of Steve's life before you alter this post again.

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoboLow. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Which other account am I supposed to be using? If there are others adding similar information to me (and if there are, I do not know who they are and certainly haven't co-ordinated this action) perhaps the explanation is: our information is, unlike 75% of this page, true and verifiable, and that we are interested in maintaining a true account of Seasick Steve's life. The current page is shamefully inaccurate, and while I am sorry to say this, I suspect the motives of some editors who are obstructing my inclusion of accurate and verified information.

Do you not imagine that someone of Seasick Steve's resources would have sued for libel by now, if everything I have written was not true? Do you think my publisher would have published information unless it had been rigorously checked by their lawyer? I have suggested, in print, that the majority of the existing Seasick Steve page is false? Why has Steve let me do that, if not, in fact, because it's all true, and he hasn't a leg to stand on? How disappointing that Wikipedia should have allowed itself to be manipulated in such a deceptive way.