User talk:Drstones

Oxford Round Table
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Oxford Round Table, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest warning
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Pairadox (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table
I have nominated Oxford Round Table, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I indicate below, I would like to see this article go, because it went awry. My act of vandalism, which got me blocked, was an effort to draw attention in that direction.  The subject itself, while sufficiently notable, is too contentious to survive an open-editing approach.  In the interests of the Oxford Round Table and its critics, the entry has to go. Drstones (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Oxford Round Table, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Oxford Round Table was changed by Drstones (u) (t) deleting 13573 characters on 2008-02-08T02:02:33+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked this as a disruptive single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a single-purpose account
I have reviewed your contributions, and have concluded that you are not a single-purpose account (you began editing Wikipedia before the article in question was created). I see that you did create the Oxford Round Table article, and have been involved in its editing and discussion. If you left editing of that article to others (presuming it doesn't get deleted), you would almost certainly be welcome to continue editing other areas of Wikipedia, as you did before you created that article. I have raised my concerns with this block at this thread on the administrators' noticeboard: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, This is Interesting
I am a rare user of wikipedia, but not a single-purpose user. And the ORT entry was started to allow an objective catalog of that conference rather than the subjective and poorly-organized discourse of the threads over at the Chronicle of Higher Education. Unfortunately, it devolved into a "wiki war" and has proved to me the inability to use wikipedia to create an objective entry. Advocates from all sides on this topic seek to create a subjective slant rather than letting basic, cited and notable facts stand. Legal threats fly and the page attracted special attention for being "not objective" against its subject even when the original content I POSTED was culled from resources promoting the Oxford Round Table. I really couldn't care if I get unblocked from the wikipedia project or not, but at this point I'm willing to sign on with deletion of the entry, if only because the parties interested in working this thread are not interested in intellectual balance, but with "winning". Drstones (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not strictly related, but yes, Wikipedia does have problems creating objective articles in contentious areas. See Ping pong. It is further complicated when the debate involves real people who are still alive (and able to sue the editors who add stuff). Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested in commenting on this? Hmm. I see you are still blocked. Not sure what to do about that. If you use the unblock template again and ask nicely and say what you won't be doing if you are unblocked, that might work. Maybe not. As you say you are not interested in being unblocked, I'll leave it up to you. You could create a new account, but please do not go back to that AfD or article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Actually, I'd like to have my support added to deleting the article, and if you wish to forward that on, that'd be fine.  I counted on moving the ORT debate out of the CHE into what I thought would be a more responsible and mature forum, and between wiki-pong and wiki-war and wiki-vandalism it went in the opposite direction. Talk about getting bit in the ass by good intentions! Anyone who takes a CHE forum seriously needs to spend time in the real world, but, by the same token, anyone who has the time for Wiki Wars needs to get back to real publishing.  That's my plan, because I have no time for Wiki Wars . . . Drstones (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to apologize for the disruption caused by my poor management of this entry. I attempted to initiate a "fair" summary of this topic and then to maintain citations.  After stepping away from the entry, I became frustrated over the divisive nature of the ping-pong on the site and replaced its content with a post decrying the divisive nature of the edit war.  My apologies for not learning and following the norms more carefully.  Drstones (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made a note of three of your comments over on the AfD. Thank you for the apology, it is appreciated. I hope you have a better experience with Wikipedia next time, whether under this account (you might still be unblocked, I'm leaving that decision to others) or another one. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that notation at AfD. I am a professional, and my other experiences with Wikipedia have been fine.  If you unblock me, that'd be convenient, but I respect a block staying in place.  More than anything, I want to remove the stigma of malice or subjectivity that this whole affair now takes on.  I hope this helps put an end to an unpleasant episode and moves forward an open-source project like Wikipedia.  Drstones (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have now been unblocked per Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones. Unblock performed by User:Viridae. Oh behalf of the community, I apologies for this unfortunate situation. Outside comments are always welcome here on Wikipedia, and we hope you will continue to contribute. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --B (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank You
I appreciate being let back, and my apologies for the inconveniences. Now, forward. Drstones (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)