User talk:Cauveren

Reverted
I have reverted your edits because they constitute book spam. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your book. -- Donald Albury 13:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they constitute spam, I think it's entirely appropriate to mention books by a serious historian in relevant articles. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Spamming in this case is about the behaviour not the content. Cauveren has added books to over thirty biographies all from just one author. That counts of author promotion, aiming to profile the writer, not the subject of the WP article. Span (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So we don't want someone familiar with a serious historian's output to add relevant books to relevant articles? Well done. And we still haven't had an apology from Donald Albury for his incorrect claim that it was Cauveren's book being mentioned. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am Sydney Cauveren, and I am frankly appalled by the arrogant and totally wrong-headed censorship excercised by Donald Albury, by cancelling out my contributions of most of the 27 biographical essays by A. L. Rowse, under his book title HISTORIANS I HAVE KNOWN, Duckworth, London, 1995. Mr. Albury must realise by now that I am obviously NOT the author of this book. The author is in fact the famous - serious - and highly respected, 20th century British Elizabethan Historian and Shakespearian scholar A. L. Rowse. I am, however, A. L. Rowse's BIBLIOGRAPHER (bibliography published by Scarecrow in 2000 - see Wiki under A. L. Rowse) therefore I do possess a great deal of knowledge on my subject (but I am in no way publicising this fact - as you seem to suggest!). I find that the additions I made, constitute serious encyclopeadic information for scholars researching the historians Rowse wrote essays about. (Some of them have only very brief Wiki entries - and therefore these essays are a valuable addition!).I find it OFFENSIVE to learn that all these have been reverted as "spam" - and seen as "to advertise your book" ALL TOTALLY WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I request Donald Albury does his research as well as I have done mine before exercising such censorship. In fact, what authority does Donald Albury hold to exercise such cencorship when Wikipedia requires a balanced view? I am, understandably annoyed by such a rush to judgment, and, I demand my entries are re-instated CORRECTLY. Many thanks to Duncan Hill (email please!) who obviously possesses both reason and balance of mind. However, I may add that I have noticed in Wiki, that there is (American) editorial censorship exercised over A. L. Rowse. This is clearly evidenced when all of A. L. Rowse's research books on William Shakespeare are deliberately omitted. And, I can't seem to get them in. (You will only find them listed under the A. L. Rowse biography in Wiki). BUt back to the HISTORIANS entries, I do expect an apology from Donald Albury - and correction applied with the entries re-inserted. I may not be a computer wizz, and do the entries 100% to Wiki standards, BUT I do take my research VERY VERY SERIOUSLY. Sydney Cauveren (jwalde@hotmail.com)

A warmer welcome

 * }

In response to your feedback
Hi Cauveren. Your edits were reverted en masse because your only goal here seems to be to insert A. L. Rowse's books into as many articles as possible. We consider that to be spam, especially when the book is not cited as a source, but only included as "further reading". In the same way that we don't allow people to indiscriminately link to their websites on Wikipedia, we don't allow mass insertions of book details.

That said, if you have access to Rowse's work, these books could be valuable as sources for article content. Have a look at the instructions for citing sources - it may be possible for you to re-add some of this material in order to verify or expand the information in these articles.

Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Hello Yunshui - Sydney Cauveren again! I cannot understand your logic at all. The book HISTORIANS I HAVE KNOWN by A. L. ROWSE, Duckworth, London, 1995 comprises 27 essays of historians whom this GREAT historian personally knew (as the title clearly says - even for the thickest brick-heads), but who also happen to have biographies in Wiki. Realising this, my aim was to INFORM researchers that Rowse's essays are FIRST RATE references to use for them to consult as FURTHER READING or RESEARCH - they can please themselves what jargon is to be applied here. The upshot is that these essays are useful to those interested.This silly nonsense of SPAM is ridiculous obstructionism. My only aim is to provide valuable research information. Seeing this was simply cancelled out, I see no point in bothering with Wikipedia as a balanced source of information. It is in fact very selective - and made so by whom? Who is this Donald Albury for instance? I can't seem to find any books under his name anywhere. I am irate and simply cannot and will not work with minds on a totally different 'wavelength' to mine. Sydney Cauveren Author of: A. L. Rowse - A Bibliophiles's Extensive Bibliography, Scarecrow Press USA 2000


 * It would be great if you used that book as a source for additional material that you added to the articles, or even if you could use the book in citations to support relevant previously unsourced material in such articles. It is the act of merely adding the book to Reference or Further reading sections in multiple articles without contributing anything to the content of those articles that the Wikipedia community objects to. -- Donald Albury 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As previously clearly stated in my responses above, to your obnoxious and rediculous actions of 'reverting', my contributions, I clearly see this as CENSORSHIP. Information added, whether under Further References, and / or, Further Reading, are both valuable additions to the encyclopeadic content - AND NOT 'SPAM' as you wrongly presume. What you are exercising is CENSORSHIP. Perhaps your 'Wikipedia community' should seriosly re-think this business of just slashing out serious contributions. Unless you re-instate my contributions - which are serious and valuable reasearch additions - I shall no longer contribute anything else to such a biased attitude. What would possibly be the point? Sydney Cauveren