User talk:Buitendebox


 * }

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Hubert Laws has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMPOkAmlu3I, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX4kxubDwgo, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db4EDWd57LU. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings... reply
Greetings John. Thanks for your note. While I can readily understand your dismay at finding your work reverted, I can assure you that I only did so in compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The first edit you refer to, in which I removed “…Jazz Flute Transcriptions where these can be downloaded for free.”, violates at least a couple of Wikipedia policies, including External links and Conflict of interest.

As for the second edit, in which I removed content (“…limiting the awareness of his outstanding musicianship. Nevertheless, he has inspired great admiration among those who have been lucky enough to hear his music, his reputation being especially high among flautists.”), as I pointed out in my edit summary, it clearly violates one of Wikipedia’s fundamental principles, Neutral point of view (NPOV). It’s fine for a a dedicated website and/or forum, but obviously not for an encyclopaedia.

BTW, I was one of those “lucky enough” to have heard his music –live– and to have known him, and many of his “mates” from the 60s, personally, but that’s beside the point. I just mention it so as to assure you that my “decision” to remove the content/link is in no way based on ignorance of the subject and/or the man himself, but in strict application of Wikipedia policies.

Hope this settles your doubts. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Technopat. Your reply gives rise to some questions here.

Are you on the Wikipedia paylist, or are you a voluntary contributor with the same status as myself? In either case, do you feel at liberty to remove voluntary contributions by others without at first informing them of your intention to do so, and on what grounds?

Looking forward to hearing from you once again. John DevittBuitendebox (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I assure you that not only do I "feel at liberty", to use your words, to edit Wikipedia and to, again in your words, "remove voluntary contributions by others without at first informing them of your intention to do so", but am fully aware that I do so in strict accordance with several Wikipedia policies.


 * "On what grounds?" Well, contrary to your unfortunate accusations that my "personal interpretation of Wikipedia guidlines constitutes a violation of what would appear to be the three most fundamental of all guidelines" and that I've "chosen the 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach" –both comments seemingly belying your expectations of "fruitful dialogue" which can lead to "mutual agreement"– as I point out in my reply above, your first edit "violates at least a couple of Wikipedia policies, including External links and Conflict of interest" while your second edit "clearly violates one of Wikipedia’s fundamental principles, Neutral point of view (NPOV). It’s fine for a a dedicated website and/or forum, but obviously not for an encyclopaedia."


 * If it had been a mere matter of opinion or shades of meaning, and notwithstanding the fact that your attitude could have been slightly less belligerent, I would obviously have been open to further "negotiations", but I'm afraid that, even if we were to only take into account the above policies that your edits violate, i.e., there are other possible issues which I haven't yet raised, there really is nothing left to "negotiate". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)