User talk:Bielle/Archives/2012/October

revision 517293493 dispute
This is in response to the notification I received October 12, 2012 from Bielle referencing revision 517293493. I spent many hours reading through all the help files and tutorials on the Wikipedia site prior to the revisions made today on Cecil Murphey’s page with the knowledge needed to meet your standards. I also viewed several random Wiki pages to see how they were laid out visually and grammatically.

Having prepared myself as such, imagine my shock and disbelief to discover all the work I spent four hours to key in today got deleted by you. It’s bad enough that you removed the entire section, but couldn’t you come up with a better reason than, and I quote, “not supposed to be an advertisement for writing”.

Let me explain to you several of the reasons why you have overstepped your bounds on this decision. To begin, this page is solely based on the writer, Cecil Murphey, author of well over 100 books to date. In order to introduce and educate a reader to Cecil Murphey, (or to any writer, artist, musician, etc.) listing the book titles, song and/or album titles, etc. is what defines their talents best. Next point, in order for this list of book titles to be considered an “advertisement”, it would be necessary to include additional information, such as “Where To Purchase” and / or “Cost To Purchase”!!! Your claim of “advertising” is a bit extreme, don’t you think? My last point (for now), is based on continuity. As I stated in paragraph #1, prior to this revision, I reviewed numerous other Wikipedia pages. On the majority of these pages, I viewed chronological listings of written books, music, etc., using basically the identical style and format as mine. Please explain to me why you allow some people to include it and delete others?

I’m extremely frustrated with this situation and expect resolution ASAP. In other words, if you can’t give a more realistic explanation for your decision to delete all my editing, I will be expecting your revisions to be reversed immediately. CatM58 (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am glad you came here, rather than just reverting. I understand the frustration of sussing out the more-than-a-little idiosyncratic, arcane even, ways of Wikipedia. I certainly haven't mastered them myself, but have been learning since 2007. Having said that, this discussion does belong on the article's talk page where others can join in. I will move it either later tonight or tomorrow when I am ready to add more commentary. Just briefly, though, the "advertising" to which I referred was not in reference to the books, but to Murphey's services as a writer, as a substantial number of his listed titles appear to have been "ghostwritten", co-authored or "with". I just wanted to be clear about the context of my edit summary and apologize that I was not so in the first place. Second, nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia. Everything you have typed is still available should we decide that any or all of it warrants re-adding.


 * When I move this to the talk page, there will be link here. I will explain there why I deleted the list and where we might go from here. Regards, Bielle (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion of the article Cecil Murphey here