Hari vs. Littlejohn diatribes

You claim that the material I edited in the Littlejohn article is well-sourced and relevant; I beg to differ – all of the sources come from Johann Hari, his personal arch-enemy, and therefore could never be used in a biographical article. You speak about courtesy to Wikipedia users, but how about courtesy towards the subject of the article? As someone who comes from academic world, I can assure you this simply wouldn't pass the test.

Moreover, the Hari diatribes were further twisted. Consider the following example: "Littlejohn lives in Florida in the United States for much of the year". This statement is given the following citation: ^Johann Hari "Why does the right hate Britain so much?", The Independent, 6 August 2007. Retrieved on 21 August 2007." If one bothers to click on the link to the actual article, Hari writes: "[Littlejohn] writes many of his anti-British screeds from a gated mansion in Florida, where he spends months on end". Now, there are several problems with this quote alone, implying that Littlejohn is not really British, but it doesn't claim that he spends all his time in America. This list goes on and on.

I therefore challenge you to revise Hari vs Littlejohn polemic in a way that does not sound like a propaganda piece written by a Hari groupie, and then go onto my page criticising me of discourtesy. Eliyyahu 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However you may attempt to dress it up, wholesale deletion without discussion of content which someone else put there is discourtesy. It's also contrary to Wikipedia policy, which is very clear, and which is stated here. Please take the trouble to read it, because like it or not, you are governed by it. If you have issues with the content - which you clearly have - then do what the policy tells you to do, go to the article page and discuss it. And if I may offer you some advice, don't go there blethering about academic rigour and issuing challenges. It really doesn't impress anyone, and editing here is not supposed to be a form of gladiatorial combat. --Stephen Burnett 16:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll give you time to respond to the charges on the discussion pages of the Littlejohn article, where I am placing my critique. If you were not biased against Mr Littlejohn, you would realise how absurd it is to base an supposedly impartial article on diatribes by the man's chief enemy. Somehow, I don't see the article on Hari based on Littlejohn quotes. Eliyyahu 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece of advice. Please don't go throwing around accusations of bias. Just another of those irritating little conventions which is dictated by good manners, common sense and Wikipedia policy - see WP:AGF. --Stephen Burnett 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagerly awaiting your unbiased revision. Eliyyahu 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ride of the Valkyries

Hi, I'm waiting for your answer in the talk page. Thanks.Evenfiel 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right - thanks for reminding me. --Stephen Burnett 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alim2007

Dear Stephen, I am a university instructor. I sometimes like to contribute to wikipedia. I have prepared discussion questions for the following and published them on my blog. Many students and teachers refer to my page: Sandra Cisneros's Barbie-Q Peter Weir's The Truman Show Joyce Carol Oates's Where are you going, where have you been... etc.

However, wikipedia editors keep removing my contributions. "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sandra_Cisneros. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion." I think you are extremely rude. I don't think that the contributions I have been trying to make cannot be considered spamming. And I don't think I am using my blog and wikipedia as vehicles for advertising and promotion. Your explanation is unacceptable; your treatment is unfair. I spend so much time formulating questions. And all this is for non-profit purposes. Therefore, I believe that wikipedia editors should reconsider their decisions. This is unfair and I must add that I find your approach racist, too. Regards Ali Nihat Eken, Ph.D. in Educational Sciences Istanbul, Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alim2007 (talk • contribs) 18:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the first edit you have made under your current user name I am unable to check what your previous edits were. However there are standard policies applied when reviewing the addition of external links, which are summarised in WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Please read them.

The rules which particularly apply in this case are: WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

You should also read advertising and conflicts of interest:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

There are also policies governing the addition of the same link to a number of articles. Since I am unable to check your edits I am unable to say whether they apply in your case.

Since you clearly are promoting a website that you own, and that website is a blog, the rules are very clear. They are standard rules which are applied mechanically and impartially, so your accusations of unfairness are not justified. The messages are standard ones which are generated by a template. If you find them rude, that is unfortunate, but again they are applied impartially. The accusation of racism I frankly find bizarre and offensive.

I am now going to give you some advice, which you can take or not. If you keep adding the links without discussion, they will get deleted again. As you will see from the above, your best hope of including your link in any articles here is to go to the talk page of the article, say why you believe that your link would be a valuable addition to the article concerned, and ask the other editors if they wish to add it. If you ask politely they may possibly say yes. If you express yourself in the way which you have used to me, they will almost certainly say no. The choice is yours. --Stephen Burnett 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:156.34.43.20

I recently ran into a message you left on the above user's page about a vandalism entry that came from my IP. Just in case this user continues to vandalize Wikipedia, I thought I would write a message indicating that it is not me, in case someone comes to that conclusion. Cheers. --Wolfrider 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for telling me. Picking up warnings for something that someone else has done is one of the unfortunate aspects of editing anonymously. Now that you have your own personal user ID you will be fine.

Happy editing. --Stephen Burnett 07:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stephen whats up

Why do you keep removing my removal of the term American? He is clearly talking about people from the nation of United States, not about Americans. I also think it is very dishonest to just label my contributions as vandalism when there is a clear error in the paragraph. -Lapinmies 15:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... he's using the word. Are you saying he doesn't understand the words he's using? I've opened a discussion on the talk page - maybe you could explain there? Thanks. --Stephen Burnett 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologise for the "vandalism" tag in the edit summary. I accept that your edit was well-intentioned. --Stephen Burnett 15:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hey Stephen Burnett, I don't mind reveting vandalism on this userpage or elsewhere. If you would like me to semi-protect your userpage, let me know. Thanks, -Gilliam 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.228.146.169

Please read WP:Don't bite the newbies. I was going to welcome 69.228.146.169 and use the test edits warn from Twinkle (he edited Piracy and reverted his own edit) but then saw you already did. I know it probably wasn't your intention but it sounded a little mean. You might like to use the the Test Edits Warn from Twinkle:

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with (Optional: the page <insert page name> on) Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Optional Message here ~~~~

If you don't have it already I really suggest getting Twinkle, it's a program you paste into your script section of Wikipedia and adds some rollback buttons, warns and a few other things (it's for vandal-fighting). If you want to reply please do so on my talk page because I'm not good at remembering to look at other peoples. I know you like putting conversations on one page so what you could do is post it on both. Thanks! Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw you already have Twinkle so disregard that last paragraph. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Stephen,

If I felt the links added no value to your visitors, I wouldn't even have made the effort. But I disagree with your viewpoint. There are several external links I can direct you on your sites that simply add no value. Yet they still appear as links. We have developed a suite of sites devoted to a particular artist, writer, thinker, or philosopher, and presenting the subject's life and works in a way interesting to readers of all ages.

If you feel these sites don't achieve this, then please give me your feedback, so we can improve our offerings.

Sincerely,

Charles Carlini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.138 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia's policy on external links, particularly the sections on Links normally to be avoided and advertising and conflicts of interest. These are very clear:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

One should avoid ...:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

How not to be a spammer is also relevant, particularly item 5:

Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar. There are certain stylistic behaviours that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching ....

Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun.

As you are clearly promoting your own sites, the links you are adding are invalid on that basis alone. Please note that the presence of other links which you consider to be similar does not in any way reduce your own responsibility to abide by the above rules.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Stephen,

I just reverted some more minor vandalism by the user(s) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.203.18.32 and noted that they have had multiple previous warnings. I am not sure how to go about blocking users, etc., so since you had put a warning on the page I thought you could help.

All best, Conor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conmalone (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Conor,

Thanks for the note, and your reverts. I placed another warning on the page ... we'll see if it has any effect.

If you are interested in vandal warning templates, they are listed here.

By the way - if you put four tildes - ie "~~~~" - at the end of your talk page messages, it will automatically sign your messages.

Happy editing, --Stephen Burnett 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited a page

I got a new message saying I edited Arthur Conan Doyle's page with vandalism from my IP address and I have never even been to that page until I got the message. Is there a way to remove that from my Wiki record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.132.123 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

When people edit Wikipedia anonymously, the edits they do are associated with their current IP. The edits corresponding to your IP are listed here. Those edits will always be associated with that IP and there is no way to remove them.

The good news is that you can have your own personal user name and editing record, by creating your own account as described in How To Log In. It's very easy to do and only takes a couple of minutes. If you're new to editing articles, this introduction will help you get started. Happy editing!

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 09:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive

Dude, do you know what Internet Archive is? It is the worlds biggest open source digitization project, it is bigger than Project Gutenberg, in fact PJ often gets its scan from them (well, really the Open Content Alliance). For every article that has a PJ link there should be a corresponding IA link, IA has more texts for each author plus they are original scans with pictures, edition information and letter press. Please, this is not controversial or spam. Also, I want my home page blank, thank you. -- 71.191.36.194 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davennmarr again.

Page for James Fergason also vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeinwap (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to AIV. Thanks, --Stephen Burnett 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I open Wikipedia and received a message saying I created

I open Wikipedia and received a message saying I created an unconstructive criticism of Genghis Khan - I don't think so. When i looked for somewhere to protest, your name came up under the '+' drop down tag thing. I am not registered with Wikipedia, and I simply emjoy looking at stuff.

Please respond to garyroberts834@hotmail.com for any fourther clarification. Thanks.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Genghis Khan, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. --Hdt83 Chat 07:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

When people edit Wikipedia anonymously, the edits they do are associated with their current IP. The edits corresponding to your IP are listed here. When messages are sent to the talk page of that IP, anyone subsequently using that IP will see those messages.

The good news is that you can have your own personal user name and editing record, by creating your own account as described in How To Log In. It's very easy to do and only takes a couple of minutes. If you're new to editing articles, this introduction will help you get started. Happy editing!

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism?

I do not believe I deleted any content from the Benito Mussolini page. I don't even recall visiting that page. Please provide the text that I removed. I rarely edit any wikipedia pages, and usually that it only for grammatical errors, or to add content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.242.79 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the advice given to previous anonymous editors and look at the record of contributions from your IP here.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 11:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on the Richard Littlejohn page.

Your feedback on the Johann Hari discussion page, where we are discussing horrendous vandalism by a user who calls him "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that," would be really welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.30.47 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous edits

Mr. Burnett:

Perhaps you do not understand how the internet functions. You see, I would estimate somewhere around 75% or so of people using the internet from their homes do not have a dedicated IP address. Every time I connect to the internet, I end up with a different IP address every time I connect. Thus, when you send nasty notes to people who vandalize articles but are identified only by IP address, as you did with recent vandalism to George Orwell, the message ends up being received by an entirely different, and innocent person. Receiving such messages just ruins my day. No doubt, I will have a completely different IP address the next time I log in so there is no reason to reply to this message. Have a nice day.

Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article on IP addresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.126.215 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand how the internet functions. You, however, clearly don't understand how Wikipedia functions. Vandal edits made using a particular IP will attract warnings, and possibly blocks, regardless of who the actual user is. If this were not the case, editing through an anonymous IP would be equivalent to a permit to vandalise indefinitely. You have two choices: either learn to deal with any messages you collect as a result of other people's vandalism, or register your own user ID. The "nasty notes", by the way, are generated by standard templates.

Have a nice day. --Stephen Burnett 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I do have a wikipedia user ID. But if happen to be connecting from an IP address used previously by someone who vandalized an article it still shows up as logging in does nothing to change my IP address. How much sense does it make to block an IP address when you know there is a better, in fact much better, than 50% chance that the people being blocked from using Wikipedia or the messages sent to "vandals" will in fact only end up blocking or being received by people completely unrelated to the vandalism. Again, perhaps you should learn the difference between a static and non static IP. The fact that there are numerous postings to your talk page from people utterly confused by messages received regarding "vandalism" committed by others only shows how this makes Wikipedia a less user-friendly reference tool.

Could you imagine how awkward it would be if you went to the reference department of your public library and were sternly scolded by the reference librarian because someone who previously sat in the same chair you are now sitting in vandalized a book and since they have no way of identifying who that person was, they just decided to take it out on you instead? Or perhaps they decided to deny entry in to the library to everybody who used a particular section of the parking lot?

It seems absurd when you apply the same logic used by wikipedia to a non electronic reference source, and it is just as absurd here.

Have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.126.201 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained that I am acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I will continue to do so. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, and you believe it should be changed, your time will be more usefully spent by addressing your comments to someone who (a) cares, and (b) is in a position to change it. Maybe you could learn to sign your talk page edits, too. Regards, --Stephen Burnett 07:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies Stephen.

This computer is shared.

Will Make sure no more "vandalism" Is carried out.

Although I take Issue with the amount of complaints of Mr Mckenzies comments on Oct 11. Last count it was over 350 (Daily Record Oct 13th)

Thank-you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.33.104 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism!?!?!?!

I haven't edit any Wikipedia pages in months! the only thing I did on Wikipedia other then looking thing up is i was two articles on the same thing and said in the discussion page that they need to be merged( combined ) and that was even this week! I really have know idea what you meant by "Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted" what ever you edited wasn't posted my me and I'm the only won using this system.

I'd really like to know, what you think I'm doing or did to Wikipedia? I REALLY don't know what it is your talking about!, Thank.

66.38.139.110 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Brad_Yo[reply]

Hey, thanks.

I was just trying to let someone know that the page had been vandalized. Someone wrote "PIE IS GOOD" for the plot. I figured if I made a change someone might be able to detect it, and apparently I was right, but I promise I wasn't trying to do harm. As for the Charles Dickens article, it's possible it was someone else in the household, but I am unaware of the event. Thanks for helping though, I guess next time I'll wait it out until someone else finds the mistake.

umm

yes this is high school network in texas all computers are on the same ip so i havent been changing things other people have soto fix that im signing up so when i get on wikipedia i dont get blamed for changing stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.90.226 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message asking me to refrain from making test edits

I have never made any edits in Wikipedia

Stephen

AfD nomination of Raising Malawi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Raising Malawi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising Malawi. Thank you. NewAtThis (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]