User talk:Nskinsella

Welcome!

Hi Nskinsella! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Duk 05:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella

Hi Ns, you were abusive to User:Willmcw, he was just trying to look out for your copyrighted page, considering that User:DickClarkMises's edits were a copyright violation. And you're identity wasn't clear, editing under two different anonymous ip's (24.175.17.57 and 216.216.209.2). Remember, not all of us are lawyers. You should apologize.

Also, you broke the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, for which you can be banned for 24 hours. Please don't do this again or I will block you.--Duk 04:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, etc

I don't care who you are. Let the regulars decide if the guy is notable or not, but don't lose your rag. As one can see by Kate's tools you have a grand total of 12 edits (I have 16352), making you inelligible for voting on deletion matters. The more you jump up and down and throw a tantrum the more people are going to think less of you. Dunc|☺ 19:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thought I should chime and say that I think the above comment is out of line. There is no edit count threshold for participating in VfD, although users with very few votes and a clear agenda routinely see their votes discounted when an admin comes to close the VfD. Do not "let the regulars decide"; this is a Wiki where anyone can join in as long as they do so in good faith. -Splash 01:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand my vote not being counted, but why it is moved to the Sockpuppet heading? I am not a sockpuppet and I clearly labeled my vested interest. I am disturbed that Willmcv is using a double standard: he readily deleted my own listing (which I did not put up nor did I oppose having deleted), yet he makes up lame distinctions to keeping Palmer's listing. It is clear not an honest, objective, or consistent policy. BTW, if there is an edit threshold, for such matters, I was unaware of it. Curious: what is an admin, and who has the real right to delete an entry? Nskinsella 01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stephen

Just so you know, it is against policy to create articles about yourself on Wikipedia. As it seems your article is relatively neutral, so you may get away with it. I would say "don't do it again", but I guess that's relatively unlikely. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I was not aware of this. Where would I find this alleged policy? In any event, if it is true, then it seems anonymous entries about a person should be prohibited too, since that's an easy way around this rule (which I would not do, since I am no coward). But over at the Tom G. Palmer entry, where they are voting whether to delete it, the entry is obviously authored by Palmer, via anonymous. So go there and take a look. --- Brief addition: I have put up some info on my discussion page Talk:Stephan_Kinsella. It turns out that autobio is not prohibited, just frowned upon; but given that my first entry, which was a bio not an autobio, should have have been deleted, and I am basically re-creating what was up before (from memory), and it is not vanity-style but mostly facts that can be verified, I don't think I am in violation of the policy--especially b/c I disclose all this and don't take the anonymous way out, unlike the anonymous posting of Tom G. Palmer. Nskinsella 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The purpose is to prevent people with no notability writing what we call 'vanity articles' about themselves, because they think the world needs to know about them. You're right it's not an absolute rule, but it's really quite strongly frowned upon. We prefer that articles are written in a neutral way, and it's really quite hard to be neutral about yourself. We generally take the view that "If you are well-known enough to warrent an article, someone else will write one about you". You are of course free to correct an article about yourself. DJ Clayworth 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That is basically what I have done. Someone else had previously put up a bio of me, drawing mostly on my own online bios. Then it was deleted in abrogation of the rules; so I have basically restored it. Nskinsella 01:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Autobiography does not forbid autobiographies, but they are deeply frowned upon. Especially when created in retaliation, Nskinsella. More importantly, the recreation of deleted content can be speedily deleted so make absolutely sure you have different content or it will vanish before your very eyes. -Splash 02:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh, don't worry, it's different, alright. Trust me. Compare it to the original, if you can. Heh heh.

Self-Promotion

Your page looks like a Martindale entry and looks to me like shameless self-promotion. I do not think that everyone who graduated from lawschool, published a few articles and practices law should be allowed to create their own Wiki article about themselves. Do you? If you are allowed to, your actions will set a bad precedent for this community, IMHO. I'm not sure why you should be treated as exception. Being previously deleted does not seem to help your case.

Is there anything else that makes you a particularly well-known or well-regarding attorney other than publications? If you have were in charge of some famous cases, I think your case would be stronger. It is nothing personal against you. I am sure you are a fine attorney and libertarian theorist, but I think your page should be deleted. --RyanKoppelman 14:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't take your remarks personally. But as I noted here Talk:Stephan_Kinsella, I appear to meet the Wiki standards for notability. I simply want consistency--if the entry for Tom G. Palmer is notable and not deleted, why should mine?

• Kinsella has a large body of articles on libertarianism and legal topics. If you think Kinsella isn't notable enough for a Wiki page, neither is Tom G. Palmer. This is a problem with an open-source encyclopedia: consistency, both within articles and between them. -- David J. Heinrich

The criteria for notability and the problem with self-promotion seem like two separate issues to me. You have a vested and self-serving interest in a wiki article existing about you. I don't care whether one exists for you or Tom Palmer. I want the community to be successful. Allowing self-promotion is not in the best interests of the community. I prefer that you and others not use Wikipedia for this purpose. Rigid consistency about what's in and what's out seems much less important than whether Wikipedia is allowed to be used as a tool for self-promotion.--RyanKoppelman 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is not self-promotion. I originally posted an article about Kinsella, which was deleted (in violation of Wiki guidelines, I might add). After I created the article, and before it was deleted, I mentioned the entry to Mr. Kinsella via email because I needed his consent to release an image from his website into the Public Domain. He went to view the article, mentioned to me that it had been deleted, and became involved--at my request--in helping to restore it. For anyone checking, I did not create the original entry from this account (posted it before starting an account). DickClarkMises 21:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your VfD comment

I would recommend that you revisit your extremely verbose comment on the new VfD. Such things do not draw favour. Editors are able to go read and research the article themselves, and the ridiculous amount of space your comment takes up is unnecessary. If you plan to keep the article, I'd recommend doing things in a less in-your-face manner altogther. That's entirely up to you, of course. If I were you, I'd replace all that stuff with a link to the talk page you have copied it from. -Splash 18:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am a newbie. Not sure the best way. How about put it on the discussion page for the VfD page, and link to that?
  • No, those never get read, unfortuntaely. The main trouble is that (whilst being a lawyer means this what you do), quoting the rules at us won't get you anywhere. We know the rules (at least, those of us that prowl VfD regularly do), and the most common reason they are quoted back at us is because there's nothing more substantial for the subject to go on, and I suppose you don't want to give that impression... If you want to put a link in the VfD, copy paste this: [[Talk:Stephan Kinsella]]. I should say that removing your long comment from the VfD is not a requirement, but, personally, I'd recommend it.-Splash 18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, that looks better! You are entitled (and almost expected) to vote keep, however, although the closing admin may or may not count your vote. -Splash 18:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Splash. I'll change my vote. This has been a distressing thing. I am not a pretentious person. I never asked for an entry. Someone did one, unkonwn to me, someone I dind't even know. Then it was put up for deletion by Willmcv. I never opposed it, b/c i never claimed I was "notable" (I didn't know the standards at the time). But I resented being accused of putting up a vanity page, since I had not. So I did not fight its being deleted. Then I see that the same guy, Willmcv, is voting to keep Tom G. Palmer. Palmer is, like me, just another libertarian. I have published more than he has, but he works for Cato. Willmcv gave as his reasons for Palmer being notable that he is openly gay at the Cato Institute; that is absurd. It is not even mentioned in the entry! Moreover, someone else said Palmer's long list of publications is good enough for the Professor test; but mine is much longer, and I have published several books, not just articles. So I looked into the policy and in my view, I qualify for the biography criteria. Don't you agree? User:Willmcv seems in general to be an active and fair Wiki editor, but he seems to be inconsistent and have an axe to grind here. He continually assumes the worst about me. First he assumed it was a vanity page; but it was not; I didn't even kown the guy who put it up. Second, he says I'm an employee of the Mises Institute; but I am not. Third, he kept picking on me relentlessly about a stupid copyright issue--I am the damned author and owner of my own site, yet Willmcv kept harping on the use of public domain info from my own website's bio, simply because he didn't like the copyright notice on my site. He was, I believe, trying to force me to adopt the open source or GNU type thing that wiki types like. That is not his right. So I believe he is a bit biased against me because of these issues.

• You're welcome. The VfD process can be pretty bruising at the best of times. It is true, though, that you could have avoided the distress by not rewriting the article. I would entirely understand if you did not want to contribute any further to Wiki; I wonder if I can encourage to stick around and use your evident knowledge of things-legal-and-libertarian to enchance other articles (strictly observing NPOV of course). It would be wrong of me to answer your question, considering that I have merely completed the nomination and cast no vote. Some editors are of the opinion that having your words in any book or books is enough for inclusion, some are not persuaded unless the book itself is notable etc. It's good that you have read policy; few people do before they write autobios. Good luck, and do take a look around to see where else you might help out! -Splash 19:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Splizzash. I think you will see my entry is not really self-glorifying. I would not mind if others want to severely shorten it; a link to my website gives a lot of info. BTW today I decided to start a few articles, so we'll see how that goes.

user page categories

Could you please remove the categories (Libertarians | Scholars | Austrian School | 1965 births) from the user page, User:Nskinsella. Editors are not included in those categories- only subjects. User:Nskinsella is an editor, Stephan Kinsella is a subject. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

You asked...

• **Willmcw--could you restore my original entry as well, in the interest of fairness? Maybe it is better than the current one. I have no idea how to restore something. Nskinsella 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which version you are referring to. I've restored the full history so every version of the article is somewhere here: [1]. Note that it is not "done" to simply revert back to a very old version of an article without good reason. Other editors have now contributed to the recent version so it is no longer yours to command. If there are specific parts, or the entire text, of some previous version that you think should be substituted for the current text then the way best way to proceed would be to give your reasons and then make the edit. Let me know if I can be of further assistance, -Willmcw 08:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your vanity page

I've speedy deleted it per WP:CSD. See WP:POINT. Requests for undeletion go on WP:VFU. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention. Dunc|☺ 12:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. You can have your 15 minutes of fame until it is speedy deleted again. Now put your rattle back into your pram and learn some bleedin wikiquette. Dunc|☺ 13:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris: Thanks. I am making a good faith effort to comply with wikiquette. Are you? Is your insulting tone and remarks appropriate?--especially for an administrator? I have acted in good faith and have been insulted, treated arbitrarily, and abused. The objective standards for biographies Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies seem to be ignored by the delete-voters. I really don't understand this. If a given Wiki editor makes a good faith effort to apply the existing factors and criteria to my page leads to a delete vote, fine; but there is no attemp to do this, or to rebut my case showing that under the existing criteria, the biography entry is clearly permissible.

What would you have had me do? I didn't want to put my an entry on me anonymously, or ask a friend to do it, that would be dishonest. I was totally above board.

Several months ago, someone put up an entry about me, without my knowledge or cooperation--a guy named Dick Clark. Not only did I not know him (and still do not), but I had never even heard of him. When others tried to delete it, I stayed out of it. I did not even care to argue I was "notable"; at the time I did not know what Wiki's standards are. This time, when I was investigating and learning more about Wiki, I realized that according to the actual Wiki criteria Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies were, my original entry should not have been deleted. Naively assuming that Wiki editors would actually consider and apply the Wiki criteria if it was called to their attention, I put up a new page and decided this time not to stay above the fray. If my entry is deleted, so be it, but it will not be because I rolled over. Incidentally, there are wiki entries that refer to me (Intellectual Property, Libertarian_theories_of_law)--again, I had nothing to do with this and didn't even realize these entries pointed to me until a couple days ago. But if my entry is deleted, these other entries will be pointing to a blank page. What possible good can that serve?

In sum, if you could explain to me why my page is being deleted even though I apparently clearly meet the criteria, I would appreciate it. if you have any suggestions as to improvement of my Wikiquette, I would be open to hearing it. --Nskinsella 14:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good faith and wikiquette? Does this involve waging a completely pointless and irritating campaign against your colleague who has an entry already? WP:POINT. Then pestering everyone about your vanity page and acting like a complete arse? WP:POINT, WP:WQ. Maybe you are notable. What is certain is you do not know how to behave, and certainly don't deserve recognition tha will boost your already overinflated ego. Dunc|☺ 17:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Deep breaths, Dunc. And WP:CIVILITY, and WP:NPA too, even when you disagree, and especially when you are an admin. -Splash 17:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Material from Stephan Kinsella talk page

In case this Talk:Stephan_Kinsella is deleted, below is reproduced my comments and defense of my entry Stephan Kinsella not being deleted.

talk:Stephan Kinsella/archive1 - material prior to first VfD.

The article was previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella.

deletion

[NOTE TO WILLMCW: IF the original Talk page (see above) is archived, is my original entry? How do I find it? Nskinsella 01:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)]

If anyone wants to submit this page for votes for deletion, please be aware of the following.

Several months ago someone put up my bio entry (I cannot remember who, but I did not know him or have anything to do with it). My page was put up for VfD, and Willmcv, among others, voted to delete it, for vanity, and non-notable. It was not vanity, as I did not publish it. Anyway, autobio is not prohibited, just discouraged.

Now, I have since learned several things. First, The Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies states who is "notable" enough for a wiki biography entry. Given the critieria, it is clear my entry should not have been previously deleted. Note, e.g., it says:

Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. ...

• Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.

Well. I don't need to list my legal and libertarian publications yet again, but I have easily exceeded these, many times. A glance at these sites will make this clear. Moreover, there are "Alternate tests" listed that would suffice:

Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include:

• The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.
• Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?
• Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?

Oh, easy. Google turns up hundreds of entries (actually, 19,900, at last count). The info can easily be verified. I'm more well known and more published than the average college provessor, so my entry "can and should be included."

True, the rules on Wikipedia:Autobiography autobiographies</a> is that they are discouraged; but they are not banned. A couple of comments about this. First, the info I put up is easily verified. Second, an entry was originally put without my involvement; given that I satisfied then as I satisfy now several criteria for "notability," it should never have been deleted. Had I been aware of these clear rules back then, I would have pointed it out, but the deletion of my entry clearly violated the rules listed above. So I am just putting up a version of what was there before. It's more like an edit of a bio entry by the subject himself, than a brand new autobio entry (the entry is very similar to what was there before, which is now lost down the memory hole; I didn't save it b/c I didn't realize deletion was really permanent).

Finally, the policy ought to discourage anonymously-posted biographies even more than it discourages self-posted (auto)biographies, since someone can post an autobio anonymously, without being honest about it. Tom G. Palmer's entry is not being deleted (yet), even though it was created anonymously, and appears to very likely be an autobio.

Also--note, I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki Intellectual Property entry; and in the Wiki Libertarian_theories_of_law entry. Nskinsella 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I voted for delete. I would be willing to change that vote if you clean up this article and write it from an objective perspective (as if you're not writting it). Perhaps ask a friend to help/write it for you. Themindset 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned it up, and it is objective now. Please give me your thoughts. Nskinsella 01:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Note how many sentences start with 'His' and 'He', generally that is not good form. A biography is not important, simply note in a simple and straightforward way the important things the subject has done. If that is done, I will definitely change my vote. Themindset 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, you are right, this will improve it. The Palmer entry up for deletion Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tom_G._Palmer also probably has too many "his" and "he". --- I have now edited the entry, to have less sentences start with "he" and "his". I aslo shortened it and cleaned it up somewhat, tried to make it more objective; but someone else in the meantime also added some comments, which increased the length slightly; I edited this as well as it was somewhat sloppy. Nskinsella 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

--Nskinsella 14:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Username

Please don't add your username to articles in place of or in addition to your personal name. We don't add usernames to articles for a number of reasons, primarly due to the fact that our content is mirrored on other sites and username links would be broken. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Willmcw: Okay, but I don't undersatnd what you mean about mirrors and links? Could you elaborate, just for my edification? Also, what would you have me do? You are deleting my personal name; so is it okay, if this happens, if I add at least an external link to my site, or do you have some vendetta against me? I think you have the wrong impression of me. I would like to make a fresh start with you and be on good terms (and no, I don't expect you to change your vote to delete my entry). I am willing to try to make it clear that I am sincere and in good faith. Please let me know what I can do to demonstrate that to your satisfaction. Yesterday I indeed started a few entries, and am enjoying this. I want to do it right, but am an amateur at some of the rules and policies and editing techniques. Sincerely, Stephan Kinsella --Nskinsella 17:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Under the GFDL, anyone may copy and use the Wikipedia content (as long as they maintain authorship info). There are quite a number of websites that make copies of our content. For example, follow this Google search [2]. You'll see several different websites have essentially the identical content. Porn sites also take our content so that unsuspecting folks searching on non-porn topics go to their sites. Anyway, they don't take the userpages, just the articles. So any references to usernames will result in broken links. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Please read wikipedia:five pillars to see our core policies. Also, please don't cut-and-paste material from other webpages. Your Roger Pilon article is a copyright violation and has to be removed. -Willmcw 17:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to show good faith it would help if you would stop making personal comments, such as "added link to Pilon's legal publications--he has no Wiki entry due to Willmcw copyvio actions". Thanks, -Willmcw

I was not intending to make personal comments, I was trying to explain why I was doing what I was doing. --Nskinsella 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

user page categories

Could you please remove the categories (Libertarians | Scholars | Austrian School | 1965 births) from the user page, User:Nskinsella. Editors are not included in those categories- only subjects. User:Nskinsella is an editor, Stephan Kinsella is a subject. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind - another editor already fixed it for you. -Willmcw 17:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks podnah. I'll just include it as a comment field. Stephan Kinsella 17:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your Comment

Dear Sir,

As you are very aware, you are Stephan Kinsella. Your comments to me regarding yourself are almost by definition incapable of changing my view on the vanity of this article. I review VfD regularly, and will judge Palmer (and review you as well) in due time.

Best wishes, Xoloz 17:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How do you know I am Stephan Kinsella? Maybe I admire him so much I gave myself this user name. After all, are you really Xoloz?  :) Stephan Kinsella 17:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I know you are Kinsella because this user name has admitted as much in the VfD. Of course, you could be lying, or have allowed reckless use of this username, but, consistent with Wikipedia policy, I assume good faith. Xoloz 01:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you really Xoloz? Stephan Kinsella 03:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You also should probably assume good faith, but I am Xoloz. Xoloz 03:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And, in case I forget, it is what happens when I sign with four tildes. See? Xoloz 03:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tom G. Palmer and consistency

You wrote:

• I disagree with your reasoning for your vote to delete Stephan Kinsella; but it is your right. Wouldn't your reasoning apply with greater force to the Tom G. Palmer site, currently under deletion consideration, if you apply your standards consistently? Stephan Kinsella 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

My answer is: I don't know. I'm not voting on Tom G. Palmer, I'm voting on Stephan Kinsella.

All of these things are case-by-case, and they are consensus decisions.

Articles about people who are obviously notable don't get nominated for deletion or quickly survive VfD.

Articles about people who are not even claimed to be notable can be speedy-deleted without VfD.

Borderline cases are contentious, and like all human judgement calls are subject to unavoidable variability and inconsistency.

• You know, This is a really good point. Stephan Kinsella 19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems with a wiki is that although Wikipedia's goals are reasonably clear--to be a) an encyclopedia, and b) free--nobody is required to subscribe to those goals to edit a page or to create an article. So there are constant ongoing issues with self-promotion and with "vanity" articles, and it does need to be dealt with.

Everyone who wants an article kept always points to worse article that have been kept. It's irrelevant.

If the speed limit is 55 someone who drives 55 probably won't get ticketed. Someone who drives 95 in the presence of a cop will probably get ticketed. Someone who drives 70 may or may not get ticketed depending on many chance factors, but will not find that it is useful to tell the judge that other people were driving 75.

Now, let me be very clear: the point of the analogy is not to suggest that an article on a borderline-notable person is a wiki-misdemeanor. It isn't. I'm just saying: I happened to vote on this one, and I called it as I saw it.

• Fair enough. But let me ask you this. Why are NONE of those who voted to delete my entry following the Wiki guidelines for biographies? I have shown that these policies overwhelmingly support my entry; no one has even attempted to show I am wrong or even apply the policies. Everyone just makes a gut judgment. Are the policies totally irrelevant and ignored? Stephan Kinsella 19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly. However, the policies work by consensus. Policies are formulations of what editors actually do. In a VfD it is very relevant to mention them in hopes that statement of the policy will influence votes, but a vote is a vote nevertheless. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't actually do a count, but assuming that there isn't gross sockpuppetry or anything like that, the last time I looked it didn't appear to me that there was going to be consensus for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting. I was not awarwe of the process. So a page is NOT deleted unless there is a clear consensus to do so? Say, it's 50/50, or even 60/40 to delete, it might not be deleted? Interesting. Stephan Kinsella 19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I can practically guarantee that if it the vote count were 60/40 in favor of deletion, and there was no evidence of sockpuppetry, it would not be deleted.

"Votes for deletion" is a misnomer. Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy.

The procedure is explained in WIkipedia:Deletion policy under "decision policy." Here's roughly how it works. The page nominated for deletion is discussed for at least five days. After five days have elapsed, any administrator can choose to act on it. The acting administrator looks at the page and decides whether or not there is a rough consensus in favor of deletion. A guideline used by many administrators is that barring special considerations, a 2/3 majority to delete is required.

Sockpuppets are multiple accounts created by a single user for the purpose of distorting votes or creating a misleading impression about the group opinion on a matter. It is difficult to prove sockpuppetry, yet it is amazingly easy to recognize. Administrators usually ignore votes that they suspect are sockpuppets. It is common for administrators to ignore votes by users who have not created accounts ("anons", who show up with an IP address instead of a username) and users whose first Wikipedia edit is made after the start of the VfD discussion, especially if their first edit is to the VfD. All of these things are judgement calls, not hard-and-fast rules. They mostly come into play when someone gets the mistaken impression that it is easy to take advantage of Wikipedia's openness.

I do not expect this the following comments to have any application to the Stephan Kinsella article which appears to me to be neutral and factual. However, another thing you should be aware of is that the disclaimers at the bottom of every edit page&mdash:"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it" and "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GFDL"—are important and are taken seriously. Together, they effectively mean that anything is submitted to Wikipedia it belongs to Wikipedia, and the original submitter cannot control the content nor revoke permission to use it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the explanation, dpbsmith. Very helpful. I seriously doubt many if any of the keep votes for my entry are sockpuppets, so that seems good. I am not sure what is the import of your last paragraph, however. Waht is the point of telling me that writing can be edited by others? What are you trying to say or warn me of? Stephan Kinsella 04:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the following applies to you or your article. But just FYI.

People are often unclear on the concept that Wikipedia pages do not have "authors" and are not owned by anyone. This misconception is especially likely in the case of people who author pages about themselves, and is one of the reasons why we have a policy all but forbidding autobiography.

It's not a warning, because I don't see anything at all about your page that would lead me to expect it to attract edits that would bother you... unless you have the misimpression that you can control the contents of "your" page.

In the case of a blogger named Monica de Bruyn, a person using the email address monicadebruyn@newyork.com and claiming to be Monica de Bruyn seemed to be suggesting that we did not have any right to say anything about her in wording that was not preapproved by her or her publicist. Or something like that.

It is all but impossible to use Wikipedia to disseminate PR releases. They are either deleted, or edited to a neutral point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• P. S. Some other users' talk pages are on my watchlist, and I just noticed that you have been contacting them about this, too. In fact, a glance at your User Contributions suggests a systematic effort to influence the VfD discussion. This Wikipedian doesn't like this sort of thing, and I don't think I'm the only one. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have simply asked people to consider whether they are being fair, consistent, and non-arbitrary. If someone in good faith votes to delete my entyr, I have NO problem with that. I have attempted to abide by rules. I have never used a sockpuppet or meat puppet, I did not post my entry anonmyously (as others have), I did not even ask a friend to do it. I have even attempted to respect Wiki's guidelines as to bios; if anything, it is Wiki editors who are ignoring the guidelines. So if there is some rule that prohibits me from calling a possible inconsistency or unfairness to the attention of a given Wiki user in his voting, please point me to it and I will be happy to abide by that too. These charges against me are completly unwarranted and unfair. Stephan Kinsella 19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not a democracy — we seek "rough consensus". On VfD this is usually taken to mean that there needs, in the closing admin's judgement, to be a 2/3 favouring of deletion or the article remains. Closing admins have discretion to discount votes if they feel they are made in bad-faith however. This is usually applied to accounts of very new users (particularly those with a clear agenda) and accounts which exhibit sockpuppetry. What constitutes "new" varies widely (some admins think less than 20 edits, others less than 100 although this can also depend on the particular case of a given VfD). In some cases, an article is substantially revised during the VfD (Bosh is a current example) and the closing admin may pay closer attention to those votes cast after the substantial revision. Of course, all of this is at times subjective and is why we have VfU to help out. -Splash 20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella I'm sorry if I said anything that suggested that I suspect you of sockpuppetry. I do not. There is no rule against lobbying VfD voters. It happens frequently. Some see nothing wrong with it. I personally do not like it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks dpbsmith. I respect that. As you can see I am fairly new but have tried to scrupulosly respect the rules. I undesrtand your comment and I can see that even if it is not against any rules, it is not seemly to lobby. But I have not lobbied. Have I asked anyone to vote keep? I asked for fairness, non-arbitrariness, and consistency, as far as possible. What is wrong with that? Stephan Kinsella 04:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Alleged inconsistency

Thanks for your message on my talk page. When I voted keep for Tom G. Palmer, I justified it by writing that "Google returns 13500 hits for the query "Tom G. Palmer" cato [3]." "Tom G. Palmer" alone returns 34,900 hits on Google [4]. So on this point, my vote is not necessarily inconsistent (34,900 > 19,000).

But even if you had 50,000 hits on Google, I might also have refrained from voting. This is mainly because I am concerned about you putting so much pressure to have your own article. If I was in your position, I would probably keep my distance from the discussion. You are a primary source of information for yourself and, in that sense, your position might be biased. I am not sure whether your attitude fits with the Neutral point of view policy (which applies to articles, but probably also to the way the encyclopedia should be created as a whole). I don't know, and I prefer to abstain from the vote. (Please reply on my talk page if you wish to do so, your talk page is not on my watchlist.) --Edcolins 20:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

34,900 > 19,000 is certainly a weak justification. That's why I abstain, which is not equivalent to a delete. I am not blaming you for "monitoring this a little bit", it is probably a bit counterproductive though (I am just guessing). Anyway, good luck with your quest for justice! This turns out to be rather emotional. --Edcolins 07:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tom Palmer?

You might have seen that I had already voted against the Tom Palmer article. I should point out that you're not really helping your case by repeatedly questioning everybody who disagrees with you. I believe you should simply let the matter rest for now and let people decide on their own; and if they decide that your article is to be kept, you should let other people write it to keep it objective. The question whether or not there should be an article for you is far overshadowed by the fact that you should in any case not write it yourself. Several active users believe they merit an article but would wait until someone else writes on them. Radiant_>|< 21:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant--Thanks for the advice! I agree, I should not write it. And if Wiki users had not illegitimately deleted my first entry, which I did not erect, and disregarded Wiki policy, then I would not have had to do it. Cheers.

p.s.: are you hinting to me that you want me to write your article, and that I do, you will change your vote on my entry? JUST kidding! :) --Stephan Kinsella 21:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The previous article was originally written by you and posted by DickClarkMises. It was legitimately deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policies. -Willmcw 21:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

But the deleters didn't follow Wiki's stated bio policies in doing the deletion. Anyway, yes, it does appear DickClark got the info in the entry from my online bio, which was not vanity in the first place. But I did not cause him to do it, nor ask him to, nor was I even aware of it. i didn't even know him. I to this day have never talked to or met him, though we did exchange some emails AFTer he posted my entry. Wikismooches-- Stephan Kinsella 22:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said that DickClarkMises was working on your instructions. However, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to say you didn't write it. If an error was made in the original VfD then you had opportunity to point it out at the time. You also could have legitimately asked to have the article undeleted. -Willmcw 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are right about the error in the original VfD and the undelete; I unfortunately have just become savvy about such things. I do not know if DickClark copied my bio verbatim to make the original entry on me. To the extent he did, I guess you can see I wrote it--or it contained info that I wrote elsewhere. I do not konw. I never did a blackline. 00:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Using your blog as a source

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In general, blogs are not considered reliable sources by the Wikipedia community. It is especially bad form to add an entry in your own blog [5] so that you can then use it as a reference for an article. [6] -Willmcw 22:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Does it mean I am an especially bad person? Hey, did you like my article on discourse ethics? Wikikisses, Stephan Kinsella 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Patent

Patent laywer, me? Ah, you must be kidding, we are actually a bunch of Martians hacking into a wireless 802.11b network.

What do you mean by "I like the idea of utility models, me"? I like them too. Yes. --Edcolins 08:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• What Big Daddy means by that, is this. I think IP is illegitimate (note: many of the Wikipedians, in their monomaniacal zeal for the GNU license, consider themselves to be anti-copyright; but they are not, since the GNU license, like any other license, depends on copyright law itself). Patents should be abolished, as I have written (I'm a practicing patent attorney BTW). A utility model would have a shorter term, which is good; and it would presumably not carry a presumption of validity, since it would be examined only for novelty, not for nonobviousness. I believe this would be good too, since granting a utility model patent would be less of a burden on competitors than would a regular patent. The ",me" is what we say in Lousiana, us. Stephan Kinsella 13:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please be aware of the "Three revert rule." Violations can result in short-term editing blocks. You may have already exceeded that on the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. -Willmcw 03:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikinerds.org

You might be interested to note the existence of a website named [7] .

Among other things, it hosts a "knowledge base" called Jnanabase.

There is a faction of Wikipedians called "inclusionists." Since I am not one of them I don't know that I can represent their view accurately, but roughly speaking they seem to believe that Wikipedia should never delete any article on any topic whatsoever as long as it is factually accurate and not a copyright violation. This would include articles on peoples' pet cats, the intersection of Garfield Street and Pleasant Street in Avon, MA, etc. Jnanabase is an example of an actual Wiki operated on this principle.

Wikinerds.org

You might be interested to note the existence of a website named wikinerds .

Among other things, it hosts a "knowledge base" called Jnanabase.

There is a faction of Wikipedians called "inclusionists." Since I am not one of them I don't know that I can represent their view accurately, but roughly speaking they seem to believe that Wikipedia should never delete any article on any topic whatsoever as long as it is factually accurate and not a copyright violation. This would include articles on peoples' pet cats, the intersection of Garfield Street and Pleasant Street in Avon, MA, etc. Jnanabase is an example of an actual Wiki operated on this principle. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings=

Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia! I know this is a little late and I only hope your experience here hasn't been too unpleasant. Unfortunately we have a lot of editors around here who completely disregard the Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers guideline and you appear to have encountered one frequent abuser of this guideline at length. I've had difficulties of my own with this same user regarding his extensive POV pushing, disruptive behavior, and even wiki-stalking of my edits with intent to harass and disrupt. It appears that he is also actively campaigning to other users for votes to delete your article, and I thought it only fair to inform you of this in case you haven't seen it.[8] This is symptomatic of his operating mode around here, and I also suspect you are encountering him at an abnormal frequency after editing contributions elsewhere on wikipedia. It is no coincidence if you are, and I believe that it is driven by his personal political beliefs which exhibit extreme hostility to any topic involving libertarianism and libertarians. It is a common tactic of his to dredge up irresponsible and partisan allegations of racism and all sorts of other nasty smear tactics such as David Duke quotes then insert them into articles for the explicit purpose of discrediting the article subject. What is occuring on the LVMI article is a typical example of this, and unfortunately it not only fosters ill will among other editors on those articles but is also highly disruptive to the wikipedia goal of producing a quality factual encyclopedia. I hope you will continue to contribute here on Wikipedia, and please don't let the behavior of a small number of abusive editors such as the aforementioned case discourage you from making positive contributions. Regards - Rangerdude 18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)