User talk:Xrhetor

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Ckatz chat spy  09:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to your question, you cannot add your own material as a reference, as that is an inherent conflict of interest. If you can convince uninvolved editors that the material is a suitable reference, that would be different -but the problem is that you have been adding a lot of links and references to works you are apparently connected with. --Ckatz chat spy  18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand this policy:

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

It seems that I can work that has been published in reputable journals and texts. Xrhetor (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Xrhetor, this is not about "censorship", "tolerance", "politics" or any of the other false claims you're making about my actions. Simply put, a substantial percentage of your edits have involved anonymously posting links, text and other references to your own published work. You may well disagree with the decision to remove your self-references per the conflict of interest and other guidelines, as is your right. You're also certainly entitled to seek other opinions. However, I must object to your chosen methodology, which to date has involved the misrepresentation of both my actions and your own edits. If you want to have a fair, balanced discussion about this, by all means do so in a centralized location rather than on a series of unconnected talk pages, and be clear about what has really occurred. Making false claims, and spreading those claims to multiple pages, does not strike me as "fair" under any definition of the term. --Ckatz chat spy  23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ckatz, you have helped prove a point here. You are the arbiter and you are the one who gets to decide the nature of the content. This has been taken to a new level. I am not permitted to cite my own work, even though, to again quote Wikipedia's policy ("This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.") this can be allowed. Here is one example of how this ultimately impacts the quality of Wikipedia entries. If I wanted to discuss an ethnographic study of the theme park AstroWorld, which some might consider significant, I could not do this per your watchdogging. To do so would be to cite the only work published in this regard, which I have written. So, here you (Ckatz ) fail Wikipedia in two respects: (1) you have limited the encyclopedic content of an entry, (2) you have decided that expert knowledge on a subject is irrelevant. The new level, as you now have raised it, involves your rebuking of my contributions to a number of 'talk' pages. Talk pages are not part of the entry (directly) and now you are deeming those contributions to be illicit. But, certainly, this is not about the power of language, representation or politics...because, so it seems, you have said so. Xrhetor (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it apparently wasn't clear before, I'll restate: my objection is certainly not with your posting to talk pages, or with you seeking to contribute in your area of study. Neither am I the "arbiter who gets to decide the nature of the comment", to use your words. The problem lies solely with the manner in which you have chosen to do this, compounded by the fact that you are misrepresenting my actions, and colouring them with false accusations of censorship, bias, and so on. I've explained the issues related to self-referenced material, and I've explained how you can seek input from the community. If you wish to proceed in that manner, and stop the misrepresentation of my edits, I'd even offer to help. --Ckatz chat spy  00:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the sense that you have been offended. I was simply trying to make some points about my frustrations with editing. My sense is that Wikipedia is not a place for me. I don't feel welcomed in terms of the community and I wish that administrators could do a better job (please don't be offended, sometimes criticism can make your work better!) of communicating editing procedures with editors. When I first received the warning about being banned, I wondered, what did I do? Like everyone else, edits are a volunteer project and it's not fun to be called out for something that, to me, did not seem like an offense. I clearly understand the need to patrol people who wish to sell products or promote Web sites, but that has never been an intention of mine. As a pedagogical suggestion, perhaps some friendly advice for scholars who, in the future, attempt to share their work with the public. As you might guess, scholarly publishing is a not-for-profit endeavor and part of the joy of seeing your work come to fruition is to share it with the public. This is, I think, a goal of the advancement of knowledge. So, perhaps administrators like yourself could offer constructive feedback instead of going through and mass deleting edits. Consider that some aren't even aware that there is a message waiting for them, such as the one you left, and consider that if someone does not seem to be malicious in the nature of their edits, that you might be more careful in your pedagogy. One interesting thing that I noted in your deletion of some of my sources (take the entry on the Hummer as an example)...many of the pages go back to simply being repositories of curious knowledge and often lack scholarly input. If a student were to look up "Hummer" on Wikipedia, they would now only see the corporate Web sites and the information about the Hummer as a pure object. Nothing would be said about a scholarly book on the subject. This lessens the quality of the potential pedagogy of Wikipedia and, in this case, causes a student to look elsewhere for such critical information on the vehicle. As you might know, one criticism of Wikipedia has been that it is not effective in integrating scholarly knowledge and thus it is diminished as a tool for the classroom. Would you not wish to improve upon that? Do you really believe that my intention in including a scholarly volume on the Hummer (of which I was one author and my only payment was receiving one copy of the text) in the Hummer entry was to achieve some sort of profit? Was my interest in biasing the entry? On the contrary, the entry, as it now stands with your deletion of the edit is much more corporate-slanted and offers no critical or academic sources on the subject. Just an example for you to consider. As a last thought, I don't consider discussions like these to be personal attacks, as you have found them. I tend to think that we could all use a bit of reflexivity and an openness to criticism. Be open to improving your craft and don't be so offended if someone disagrees with you. If you believe in the community that is Wikipedia, then you must know that community should include room for dissent and criticism. Alas, I will no longer be contributing to the Wikipedia community. I won't be writing an entry on 'sensus communis' (which is, BTW, a complete cut and paste, including photo, from Answers.com), nor will I be editing an entry on the impact of technology on culture and community. And, you won't have to worry about verifying them! Anyway, some food for thought. Good luck to you. Xrhetor (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

75.141.228.184 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, for my part, I'm sorry if my message wasn't clear. Part of the difficulty of a text-based system such as this one is, of course, the inability for either party to impart much in the way of context or emotion in the delivery of comments... what I write may not be exactly what you read, if you know what I mean. I do appreciate that you have taken the time to continue this dialogue, and I'll add that I certainly do not mind constructive criticism. Honestly, it wasn't the fact you disagreed with me that bothered me, it was the way in which you presumed malice upon my part and accused me of censorship and bias. Keep in mind that everyone here is a volunteer, and that many (myself included) are giving their time because they believe in the potential of this project. With that in mind, and given that we have started to move past the early events, I'd encourage you to reconsider your position with regard to the project. --Ckatz chat spy  03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LTCC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)