User talk:Ariane5

Myra Hindley
From your e-mail:

I note that you have undone two contribution I made to Wiki - in the the Myra Hindley and Moors Murders pages.

''I recently put a lot of work into editing, formatting, laying out and having published, my 1993 UK Master's Thesis on the ways in which Myra Hindley is represented in the media, and I think it is a valid and useful addition to the debate and the Moors Murders wikis.  Can you tell me why you think it's acceptable for you to remove the links to my thesis, not having read it and making a clear association between it and your proclaimed "mission" of clean-up duty, thereby making an association between my thesis and "dishonest, incompetent and fanatical" work?''  I completely reject the association you have made between the years I spent working on my thesis, its validity and acceptance by the academy in the UK and your statement that "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical."

"Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that?"

I do have a problem with it.

Ariane


 * From your edit summary, three points:
 * 1)"dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" constitute three items, so "neither" is not appropriate.
 * 2) I never used such terms to describe the link; I described it a "vanity-press book", which is is. If it's an academic thesis, why didn't an actual, academic press publish it?
 * 3) Self-published books are NOT reliable sources. See here for the standards.


 * And no, you shouldn't have any problems with my upholding basic encyclopedic and scholarly standards, whatever projection you put on them. --Calton | Talk 12:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This thesis was properly submitted to a Scottish University and accepted by the academic community in the 1990s according to the guidelines and requirements of the University. It didn't have to be published by an academic press, although it is available in the University library as are all published theses. Your definition of an academic thesis as one which is published by "an actual academic press" shows a clear misunderstanding of academia and no thesis should have to satisfy your criteria before being deemed reliable.

You claim to be upholding "basic encyclopedic and scholarly standards" and yet you make a clear statement of fact in this post which is false. The link you claim declares that "self-published links are NOT reliable" does not and in fact states that they "may, in some circumstances, be acceptable". Please do get your facts absolutely right.

You used the terms "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" in the statement of your mission. You 'fulfil' your mission by deleting and editing links on Wikipedia. Any links you delete or edit are therefore, unless you specifically state otherwise, associated with these terms. You do, therefore use those terms to describe the links. If you do not wish to do so, fix it.

By deleting the link to a thesis which was accredited by a UK University you are clearly NOT upholding scholarly standards. Better qualified and more informed persons than yourself have already passed the thesis as acceptable and reliable.

Please do not pretend to know what meaning I am attributing to your actions. I could also point out grammatical errors in your post, but this is no place for that nonsense. There is also little point in insinuating that I'm new to Wikipedia when I've clearly been here long enough to have written the links you deleted a year ago.

Please bear in mind, and I think this is where you are going wrong, that the thesis is not a source of the article. It is merely an external link to further information.--Ariane5 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
 * The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\blulu\.com' (link(s): http://www.lulu.com/l_mcl).
 * Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites.	 For more information about me, see my FAQ page.	 Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh! Now I get it! Okay, now I see what I've been doing wrong. I can correct my mistake now, see? Bots rock.Ariane5 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)