User talk:Lesseroftwoevils

Hello Bishonen,

I am new to Wikipedia so if I've violated any rules of decorum or etiquette, it was unintentional and I apologize. I did not post the original quote and link for my entry, but I did see it and wondered why it had been subsequently pulled. I suggest your rationales for deleting the entry were unjustified. For one thing, “non-notable” is personal opinion. In fact the article is getting a lot of attention, has been reprinted numerous times, and will be printed in a hard copy magazine out of Australia in the next two months.

Also, whoever originally posted the segment referred to me as an “author”: I never claimed that. I am a writer and reporter, however (as well as a teacher), who has written hundreds of articles for print and radio including on the topics relevant here. You appear to be disqualifying the person rather than the idea, which generally does not constitute good policy. Pointing out that my book was “self-published” was clearly intended as an insult, which you’re entitled to, but it doesn’t serve as a very strong argument since it’s irrelevant to the issues.

Thanks for considering,

Shawn Hamilton Lesseroftwoevils (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory


 * 1) 2 Proven conspiracies, 4th entry


 * You may want to check out some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that appear relevant in this case, particularly our guideline on conflicts of interest and on citing yourself. The decision of whether your own works should be cited in an article is best left to uninvolved editors. In this particular instance I agree with Bishonen's removal of that quote, though possibly for different reasons: I do not think it aids our readers' understanding of conspiracy theories. The kinds of "conspiracies" you write about are not the subject of "conspiracy theories"; alleging that criminals smuggle drugs won't get someone called a "conspiracy nut". Huon (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Shawn. No, pointing out that your book was self-published was absolutely not intended as an insult. You realize the space for the edit summary is limited; I was trying to explain concisely that you're not what Wikipedia defines as a notable "author" (you seem to agree), the word that had been used in the text, as your book is self-published. Indeed I didn't mean it in any demeaning way, and I'm sorry it could be taken that way — I do see now that it could. For all I know, you may be "notable" — in our sense — as a journalist. Btw, you yourself didn't use the edit summary space at all, beyond the automatic bit, when you reverted me, which is actually considered a bit rude here. Only vandals should be reverted in that way. But more important than any of that: to speak to me, it's better to write on my talk page, User talk:Bishonen, not your own, because I'm not likely to see it here. But, you may say, it seems I did see it? Yes; but that's only because User:Huon "pinged" me, by linking my username. That meant I got a notification. Of course you can use pings yourself in the same way. Anyway, you're most welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for editing. I hope you like it here and decide to continue contributing. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC).