User talk:Molinari57

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!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Gscshoyru 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Gscshoyru 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising pages. 141.150.231.210 13:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused new user
I joined this morning in order to add some material to articles like the Adam Smith article. I am the Director of the Online Library of Liberty hosted by Liberty Fund, a non-profit educational foundation based in Indianapolis, Indiana. We have put online nealy 1,000 classic books in economics, history, law, political theory and the other branches of the humanities and make these freely availbale to the public for educational purposes. Before I joined, several articles already linked to some of our online books. I wanted to add some more links. I corrected an out of date link to our site in the article on John Stuart Mill; I added two links to editions of David Ricardo's economic works in the David Ricardo artcile; I was trying to do the same in the Adam Smith article when I got accused of vandalism and putting up nonsense. The item appears to be my attempt to link to a timeline of the life af Adam Smith at Timeline of Adam Smith which is a serious piece of scholarship and a useful pedagogical tool. When I went to the user page for 141.150.231.210 it seems that it is shared by a school of some kind and that they have been accused of vandalism in the past. Why I am associated with this user page, having only just joined this morning?

A confused new user.


 * A school page means the users using the ip change. The user who warned you this time was acting in good faith. You're not "associated" with him, he warned you and then you randomly added links to his user page. All but the last bit of your edits blanked lots of content in adding those links -- see the link to your contribs on the left? That's all your contributions, and the diff link shows what you changed. I'm not sure why your link was removed when you finally did add it properly, but also, since you're the director, you may want to see WP:COI, ok? Sorry that everything has got off to a bad start with you, but know that you understand what you were doing wrong a little better, you should probably be a good editor. So I'm about to add a welcome notice to your page, please read the links to get a better understanding of wikipedia, and welcome! Gscshoyru 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider yourself lucky, because I had just put up your name at the vandalism board. Gscshoyru is perfectly right: everything you did until starting this thread did NOT look like you wanted to improve the Adam Smith or David Ricardo pages. When you added it "properly", I deleted it when you seemingly put it there a second time. Now, in hindsight, that may have been wrong on my part - but now you claim that that material at is yours. There is a conflict of interest here, even if the set-up is non-profit. Only at Adam Smith, we now have several links to your domain, which also looks like spam. So, after looking at WP:COI, have a look at WP:SPAM, please. I too am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Welcome. --Pan Gerwazy 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is hardly spam, for goodness sake. I work at a non-profit educational foundation; our website has won awards from the National Endowment for the Humanities (one of their "Best of the Humanities on the Web" awards, and from the British Arts and Humanities Research Council (Editor's Choice Award). The foundation spends thousands of dollars to get the electronic rights to the best scholarly editions of authors like Adam Smith (from Cambridge University Press), David Ricardo (Cambridge University Press), and John Stuart Mill (from the University of Toronto Press) and make them freely available to the public for educational purposes. I would have thought that linking to these works from the relevant Wikipedia articles is exactly what Wikipedia is all about - making the resources on the WWW available to as many people as possible for education and enlightenment. I also know many of the other websites that are linked to from the Adam Smith page - the Adam Smith Institute in London, the Library of Economics and Liberty (another website sponsored by Liberty Fund) - and who made the links. If my links are spam or COI then so are theirs - but of course they are neither. Molinari57 17:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over
I'm sorry you had such a confusing start with Wikipedia. It confused me just trying to figure out what happened but I think I have figured it out:
 * at 08:14 you changed the url of the link to Works and Correspondence. That was a good change because the previous link went to some place unrelated to Adam Smith.
 * at 08:50 you added a link to Timeline. That might have been okay but somehow you accidentally deleted over 4,000 bytes of other information. That caused other editors to think you were a vandal and Gscshoyru undid both of your edits.
 * at 09:00 you apparently undid Gschoryu's correction to your "vandalism". Again, you did not intend to vandalize the article but somehow you deleted 4,000 bytes of good information, giving the appearance of vandalism. Gscshoyru again undid your "vandalism".
 * at 09:03 you again tried to insert your links but again deleted over 4K bytes of good information.
 * at 09:05 User:141.150.231.210 entered the picture. He saw that you had deleted 4K bytes of information so he undid your change. He saw that you had three times deleted 4K bytes of information. He left a message on your talk page asking you to stop your vandalism.
 * you then inserted a link to the Adam Smith Timeline on User:141.150.231.210's page apparently thinking that you were editing the Adam Smith page instead of that user's page.
 * that user requested that his user's page be deleted to get rid of the link that you accidentally put on his page. Gscshoyru responded to his request by informing you, the creator of that user's page (even though you did not realize that you had created it), that the page was being deleted. I am not at all surprised that you were very confused by the appearance of that deletion message on your talk page.
 * at 09:54 you posted your "confused" message on the talk page of 141.150.231.210
 * at 09:55 you posted another "confused" message on your talk page.

So good intentions but bad and confusing result. You made an editing mistake and deleted lots of good information. You repeated that mistake two additional times so other editors not surprisingly thought you were a vandal. You are not associated with 141.150.231.210 other than some confusing messages to/from/about that other user.

I have deleted the especially confusing message about deleting User:141.150.231.210's page because it was initiated by a mistake and has no purpose on your talk page. I am going to add your links to the Adam Smith page so people won't think that you are repeatedly editing that article. (We have a rule about making the same change more than three times in one day - it gives the appearance of fighting with other editors.)

I'm glad that my first day and most users' first day is not as confusing as yours. I hope that you won't be put off by this bad start and will contribute useful information in the future. If you have any problems or questions, feel free to ask me at User talk:Sbowers3. Sbowers3 01:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see you had a similar but less severe problem at David Ricardo. You inserted good information but accidentally deleted lots of other information. You are making some kind of a mistake when you intend to insert. I recommend that you practice editing by reading some of the Welcome text, then trying the sandbox or tutorial. Sbowers3 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)