User talk:76.218.124.85: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:47, 21 December 2014

Welcome!

Hello, 76.218.124.85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

WP ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 48 hours for making legal threats, which I am sure you'll understand, is not conducive towards civilised discussion. —Dark 01:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Stephen Schwartz

I did not make legal threats, but in any event, we have been through this discussion for years now, and as you note, "Consensus over the last 8 years has supported Mr Schwartz deleting such material." I pointed out material I consider defamatory and to which I object. Such material continues to reappear. I do not propose to contribute to Wikipedia but I have every right to object to such material. You do not dictate the law on libel. Nor do I. But nor would I object to someone asserting such a claim.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.85 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further by Stephen Schwartz

I received the following note through the Talk page on the entry about me, but since I am blocked from answering it there, I have recourse here:

Dear Mr. Schwartz: As you rightly stated, I was clearly in the wrong calling your articles self-published. I meant to say that the source of the article was largely auto-biography. As you rightly stated, no reasonable person would believe that you self-published an article in the New York Times or Frontpage, etc. I'm not sure that meets the muster for libel. Regardless, I have removed the offending material.

I apologize for my mistake, and I sincerely apologize for the grief that I may have caused you.

No offence meant, but a given article's Talk page is for people to discuss ways in which to improve the article. I didn't write the post because I was out to get you. I was trying to improve wikipedia. The article on you appears to take you as its primary source. I am not sure that this meets wikipedia's standards. I am not your opponent, and I do not have malice towards you. For the record, my name is Peter Hughes, I live in Quebec, Canada. I at least am editing wikipedia with a stable username, which provides for some accountability. I am coming here to try my best to contribute. This is the internet after all. You, for example could be anyone, especially since you haven't even registered a username. All we know about you is that you are at 76.218.124.85. If you find wikipedia lacking and want to contribute, why don't you pitch in? Perhaps others will take benefit from your contributions. Bapehu (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Schwartz reply: I do not understand how it can be stated that "the article appears to take me as its primary source." I am an author, so the article discusses, mainly, my writings. The article is about me, but cites only about half a dozen articles I have written or published that mention aspects of my own life. My books, which are mainly not cited, do reflect my personal passions and experiences, but as historical research and literary reportage.

As I have now said several times, it is defamatory in California law (which is different from Canadian Crown libel law in several ways) to suggest that a person in any profession has engaged in unethical behavior, without a proven, public case. A claim that I had written a Wikipedia entry about myself would be, for a journalist or author, the same as a claim that one had written reviews of one's own books on Amazon.com. It would be a grave ethical lapse and devastating to one's credibility. I may be accused of self-promotion in the webpage of the Center for Islamic Pluralism or by the very act of writing articles and books. One does not write on the presumption that one should be ignored. And like other journalists nowadays, I can hardly be accused of working primarily for money.

This has gone on for eight years, with one person after another engaged in an effort that would be flattering if the allegations and idioms were not so harsh and arbitrary. I was accused of a "bizarre stunt" in becoming a Muslim, when my religious choice was not made public for several years. Your tone was harsh in comparing me jeeringly to Steve Coll.

At one point I registered a username but the constant stress of dealing with this, and the knowledge that the page is read by people I don't know, was a disincentive to becoming a Wikipedian. I abandoned use of the username because I wanted to make clear that I am not a contributor to Wikipedia. I also objected to the tagging of every article on Kosovo with a disclaimer about its independence. I have lived in Kosovo, speak Albanian, and believe in its independence.

I did help with a couple of edits in the past where material on Stalinism was clearly wrong, but, really, a username is an alias. I signed all my posts to the Talk page with my own name.

I don't have time to enumerate all the examples of Wikipedia articles in which I have found contradictory, erroneous, and tendentious material. The article on me provides enough examples.

I believe in your sincerity but I do not understand why your effort to improve Wikipedia should have involved a broadside against me. That's all.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.85 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]