User talk:William Rothman

January 2020
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Ross McElwee. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Terrence Malick, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Dardenne brothers. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

probably an academic
I suspect this is an academic who thought he was being genuinely helpful by adding references to bibliographies; not all of them were his own work. He probably didn't even realize there were messages here asking him to stop what he was doing. --valereee (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Not sure how the COI policy would actually apply here if it's legitimate research. Seems very much a grey area. e&pi;/  💬  22:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of merit, we don't permit canvassing, per WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM. However, I changed it from indef to 36 hours, which should be enough time for them to figure out how to communicate here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh, I agree, but I do think it's very likely he could be a valuable resource; we just need to familiarize him with how best to do this. He could add other people's works to bibliographies, and he could make edit requests on talk pages offering information from his own works so that other editors could make suggested additions. The books he's posting are from prestige university presses; this isn't someone with a self-published ebook for sale via Kindle. --valereee (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am an academic, a serious scholar with honorable intentions and a dozen books published by respected university presses. I was also f, and have every intention of being a valuable resource for Wikipedia. Self-promotion wasn't my goal in adding all those citations; in fact, my wife has criticized me for years for failing to promote myself. I don't think that anyone in my field who knows my work, or knows it only by reputation, would doubt the legitimacy of including references to them in the "Further Reading" sections of those Wikipedia entries, but I understand that what I did can be seen as constituting what the Wikipedia guidelines call"citation spam." I had no idea at the time that I was doing anything improper. I certainly won't do it again. I greatly appreciate that my blockage was changed to a temporary one that will be lifted after 36 hours. Thanks for taking your roles at Wikipedia so seriously. And Happy New Year.
 * Seeing that it's clear that you understand why you were blocked, I've lifted the block. Please review Expert_editors; it has good advice and policy info that should be helpful for getting you started. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note: you can sign your talk page posts by using four tildes at the end: ~ . OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)