User talk:Scolas1

June 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Charles Baudelaire have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Charles Baudelaire was changed by Scolas1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.895291 on 2021-06-19T17:41:05+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Poetry. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Jumpytoo Talk 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Charles Baudelaire. Jumpytoo Talk 21:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply informing users of some very important recent work on the subject of Baudelaire’s poetry. As the work is self-published, but nonetheless far superior to most of the other publications listed on the page, the only citation I could find was the link to the amazon page. If the link did happen to result in a sale for amazon, I would be very surprised, and if it did, at least one more anglophone reader would be able to appreciate the best of Baudelaire. Scolas1 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Scolas1[reply]

An act of inserting titles of self-published books which were just published few months ago and mentioned only in shopping sites is called advertisement. Adding links to the author's webpage, a page without any single line of actual translated text, into the "Online texts" section, is deceptive and worse (Special:Diff/1030407232). See Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about YOU, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

--Wotheina (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but try reading the book, you might be pleasantly surprised. Whatever you surmise, my work on Baudelaire is important, and as a very recent newcomer to Wikipedia, I was unaware of its rules. You are right, it is not about ME, it is about Baudelaire. As for “ no original research “, that is just gratuitously insulting. The list of translators which you appear to have arrogantly removed is the only one of its kind, and was intended to be a useful reference for anglophone readers interested in the various approaches to poetry translation. The page also has links to some translated texts and other articles of interest, but you obviously didn’t bother to check those. As an 80 years old lifelong literary scholar I do not take kindly to unfounded assumptions about my integrity or intentions. Thank you for informing me. Have a nice day. Scolas1 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long list of “works” on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Baudelaire#Online_texts most of which have no citations or links, but only my edits are removed, even though they do not contain links either. My work is just as important as anyone else’s work, but apparently certain editors have a different opinion, based on nothing more than their own arrogant assumptions, and their over-zealous mission to police the site and apply the rules. If people can’t post scholarly works of interest on the relevant page without being accused of self-promotion or deception, then I think that if Wikipedia doesn’t revise its policies then it is doomed to die eventually. Self-published work is a fact of modern life, and should not be frowned upon by the ill-informed. It is for everyone to make their own judgements and we do not need to be “protected” from links to Amazon or any other commercial website, so long as such links are germane to the topic of the Wikipedia page. Scolas1 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of other edits is no license to add bad edits (See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#What about other content?). Your ads caught attention just because the Wikipedia system notified about it, nothing else. Wotheina (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your messages are becoming tedious. I don’t intend to waste further time by adding useful information on a topic that you know nothing about. I’m far too old to be lectured by the likes of Wotheinia, whoever you are. I’m done with this pointless incestuous place. Good luck!Scolas1 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]