Michaelhogan73

Self promotion

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jamie, but I don't see how that applies to any of Mr. Hogan's edits. He's not saying, "buy my book", but rather is using his expertise to add information and citations to articles. And unless there is some sort of neutrality issue with the material itself, then there's nothing wrong with adding it, as WP:COS explains. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits, plus those of an IP doing the same, are clearly self-promotional and represent a conflict of interest. If Mr. Hogan wants to have his work considered for inclusion, he needs to argue his case and allow other, uninvolved editors to assess the matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

All he did on spirituality was cite a statement that had been in the article, uncited, for quite some time. That would seem to be WP:COS in its absolute most basic and uncontroversial sense. As for 76.* IPs on that article, all I see is an insertion of useless commentary which, I think it is safe to say, would not have come from Mr. Hogan. There seems to be an entirely separate issue over at Transcendence (philosophy). Even there, I don't see anything wrong with the content that was added, except perhaps for an easily-remedied stylistic issue--i.e., the phrasing could be considered a bit more academic ("According to Person A, Idea B is true") than encyclopedic ("Idea B assumes Assertions C, D, and E<ref>Person A.</ref>"--assuming that Person A doesn't already have a WP article to justify in-text mention of Person A). The material in question is far more clever than the IP's decision to engage in an edit war over that material, but A) editors' behavior shouldn't be construed as validating or invalidating article content, which should be evaluated for its own merits (should it not?); and B) when in doubt, why not WP:AGF, especially regarding new editors who might not yet have heard of, say, 3RR? I dunno, but the contribution that Mr. Hogan made to spirituality seemed like the kind of contribution that any editor with a WP:CLUE might add. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)