User talk:Carljfree

Welcome!
Hello, Carljfree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581931201 your edit] to Stephen Sizer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Trials of the Diaspora|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199297054|page=517}

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have provided references for the addition I made. I respectfully suggest that the source of the material I cite is reputable, though I appreciate that this is often a subjective thing. One only has to look at Amazon reviews to see that occasionally a book that has garnered a dozen or more five star reviews gets a stark one star review. This suggests that people have different experiences of reading the same thing. Carljfree (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Again you are entitled to your opinion. It is clear that you feel my references are poorly sourced. But I have provided links to them. I think it is interesting that you imply that the material I have posted could be defamatory. Particularly as the blogger about whom I have provided  information is reported to have "voluntarily" removed material from his blog following a visit from the police. The things he wrote were undoubtedly controversial. In presenting this additional information, I am merely filling in a little more detail. It is, in my view very appropriate material as the subject is about alleged censorship by Stephen Sizer. I am going to reinstate this material once more. If you delete it again, then I will report your continued deletion of this material. I see that you have been active on Wikipedia for some time and it is clearly something that you enjoy being a part of. I am new, so do not know how long any suspensions may last, but my guess is that you would resent blocked from this community (should that be the outcome of a report). Of course, if you wish to escalate this now, please go ahead. Alternatively, simply delete my entry again and I will do so myself. Carljfree (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Your reading of policy cannot be as thorough as you claim if you believe that enemy blogs and/or original analysis of blogs are reliable sources for claims about living persons. Do not add them again.'' –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not prefacing my replies with fancy pictures and symbols. I have not worked out how to do that yet! Having been a member of Wikipedia for little more than 24 hours, I am still a newbie so I appreciate your consideration in "going easy" on me as I learn. In the interests of saving your time and mine - I do not intend to play editing ping pong and so will not add my material again until I have clarity on a number of points. I hope you will please be patient with me while I unpick what is and is not allowed. I am sure you would agree, it can be confusing. In answer to the question, "Are web logs reliable sources?" the answer given by Wikipedia is "In many cases, no". It does not say "in all cases, no", but "in many cases, no". This suggests that some blogs (I guess particularly if written by established and credible writers) are acceptable.

You have referred in your most recent message to "enemy blogs". I am afraid I have been unable to find a definition of this on Wikipedia, either in an article or in their terms and conditions of use. I do not want to wrongly speculate what "enemy" means in this context...but as you have used the term in relation to content by Richard Silverstein, I am assuming that you consider him to be "the enemy". I have already indicated that I am new to this, so there may be an established culture or terminology used by those in the Wikipedia world that is well understood amongst aficionados. So before I seek clarification from moderators in Wikipedia (assuming that such people exist), could you please let me know what you mean when suggesting that Richard Silverstein is the enemy? Specifically, whose enemy do you consider him to be?

I have removed three additional messages apologizing for not putting my name at the end. I now realise I was not logged in. Carljfree (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification still being sought on the term "enemy blogs. It is me again - logged in from the start this time. I am starting to get the hang of this now and it's only my second day! I have read through the guidance on disputes and wholeheartedly agree that it is better to try and clear things up without going down the formal dispute route - or at least not until having attempted to sort it out directly with the other party. So assuming that you are OK with having dialogue on this then I am very happy to give it a go too. But before returning to the main issue (our disagreement over whether not not I have the right to provide additional background material under the "censorship incident" section), perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify my earlier question in relation to your use of the word "enemy". I have been giving it more thought during the day (as well as having attempted to find the answer in Wikipedia's guidance notes) and so far I have failed to work it out. I am heading to bed shortly so there is no need to reply immediately. In fact I am likely to be quite busy over the next couple of days and as the Wikipedia guidance suggests - it can be worth taking time to iron out disagreements. I look forward to hearing from you in due course on what exactly you mean by "enemy blogs" and I guess in particular, the "enemy" bit of that expression. I have still not worked out the symbol thing but I am still very much a newbie (but one who is eager to learn).

Kind regards, Carl Carljfree (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I just corrected a few typos. Having already told you that I was largely out and about I was not expecting you to have responded yet so please do not feel that I am hassling you. This was a question of tidying things up. Once I have posted this I will be making a copy of the entire thread which I will be happy to share with you. I know that all edits will be logged - but I am sure we would both like to have occasional "snap shot" records in case one or other of us return to previous messages and changes them as I have just done now (though I have not changed anything of substance - just the typos that I noted in the edit summary) Oh, and I added this note too!

Kind regards, Carl Carljfree (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)