TracedInAir

Welcome

Hello, TracedInAir, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Reference spamming - March 2013

Hello, I'm SFK2. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to constitute as WP:REFSPAM (also see WP:BOOKSPAM. The mass addition of links to articles by Simon Springer suggests that you are attempting to publicize the work rather than contribute to the encyclopedia. Please stop. -SFK2 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Clearly these revisions add to the articles and anyone with some working knowledge of the actual content of these Wikipedia entries will recognize the importance of these citations to the knowledge base of the encyclopedia. These edits were not mere "BOOKSPAM" as suggested, but in most instances actually added important new sections and expanded the value of the entry. It is clear that you don't actually have knowledge of these topics, but are rather more concerned with the idea of "BOOKSPAM" than the actual contribution to content. Please stop with the personal vendetta, it is unwarranted and ill-informed. You are even going so far as to delete references to Simon Springer's work that pre-date any edits I made. This is entirely inappropriate. -TracedInAir

• Your edit history shows clear signs of spamming the name of Simon Springer into articles. If you are not a million miles away from being this person, there is a conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How is expanding article with relevant material that is important within the academic community and therefore Wikipedia users considered a "conflict of interest"? Whether I am or am not Simon Springer is neither here nor there, as the edits made clearly demonstrate the importance Springer's contribution to the literature/topic. Obviously someone has too much time on their hands to go back through every edit I made and then take it upon themselves to undo it all, despite the obvious contribution to the articles. Seems to me that this is where the real "conflict of interest" is, which is clearly manifesting as a personal vendetta. TracedInAir (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting I am this individual, but clearly that is your suspicion. The policy itself should satisfy your concern though as it states: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.]. Clearly the edits I have made fall "within reason" and conform to this policy. TracedInAir (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not take Sherlock Holmes to make a deduction about who might be spamming the work of Simon Springer into articles. Please don't do this or you may be WP:BLOCKED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, as the rules clearly indicate, I am within limits and this hardly constitutes spamming as is being accused - judge, jury and executioner style... and here I was thinking that Wikipedia was an exercise in democratic, horistontal knowledge production, not an opportunity to attack noobs. The contribution in each article is clearly specified and additional discussion has been added that contributes value to the articles. Since when is adding details to a small handful of relevant articles considered grounds for being BLOCKED? If that is actually the case, then wow, Wikipedia sure isn't what it is cracked up to be. Persecuting a new user is certainly not a welcome introduction and won't exactly draw people into wanting to contribute to this website. Perhaps some reflection on that is in order? TracedInAir (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The mass addition of these links to the 'further reading' sections gives the impression that you are attempting to publicize the work rather than contribute to the page. This type of action is discussed under one of our policies WP:BOOKSPAM which states: "sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article". It seems like you are attempting to weave in references to Simon Springer's work. If you are genuinely interested in improving the scope of the article then stop with the bookspam and provide some more substantive content. -SFK2 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well as a new user here I made some edits that might have been questionable, but I quickly realized my mistake and went back and filled in additional details to improve the scope of the articles and to conform with Wikipedia protocols and standards. The problem is, the two of you came along and made it your personal mission to delete every legitimate addition I made. So not only were you deleting articles in further reference lists, but you were also deleting entire paragraphs and sections of entries where I had clearly made an effort to improve the article and expand the discussion, which included reference to multiple scholars... and yet your selective edits only removed references and sentences that referred to "one particular scholar". This is where the conflict of interest really is. So again, why the personal crusade? Knock it off. I'm clearly trying to contribute in a legitimate way here, but it is difficult when I have two users who think they are above me and can simply police my edits with total impunity. TracedInAir (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at WikiLeaks. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well as a newcomer I don't know what that means. I'm currently reading about "good faith" and "please do not bite the newcomers" and I'm honestly at a loss to understand what the controversy over my edits is all about. I realize my initial edits were not conforming with the policies and have subsequently gone back and attempted to improve them to appease those who have come after me, but even that has been met with hostility and unwarranted deletions. So the bottom line is these users have successfully alienated me and dissuaded me from contributing any further despite the obvious contributions I have made in attempting to improve the entries I have edited. TracedInAir (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is related to the warning in the section above, which references Wikipedia:Edit warring. In a nutshell, the edit warring policy is "Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion." It would be appropriate at this point to make your case on the articles's talk pages to seek consensus instead of just repeatedly reverting other users. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a case on a "talk page" and I'm pretty much done with being bullied by SFK2 and Ianmacm anyway, so I guess they win. Must be a great source of pride for "senior" editors such as these two to provoke a new user into an "edit war" and completely drain any desire from ever contributing to this website again. Talk about despoiling the spirit of Wikipedia. TracedInAir (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I just mean that you can go to the talk page of an article you want to edit, say Talk:Agonism, and explain your edit. It's especially recommended if you've made an edit that has been reverted by more than one user, check out WP:BRD. I'm sorry you feel bullied, and I can understand why this is all discouraging, but I hope you stick around. Please feel free to keep asking here if you have any questions. Cheers Dawn Bard (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you have been edit warring at the WikiLeaks article to add mentions of Simon Springer to the article. It would be helpful if you could diversify your interests on Wikipedia. Though it's possible that you have good intentions, a single-minded focus on promoting the work of a particular academic doesn't look good. If you wish to respond to the edit warring complaint, you may do so at WP:AN3#User:TracedInAir reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: ). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the ongoing suggestion is coming from that I am only focusing on a particular academic? Initially that was the case and I learned quickly that this was not acceptable so I have made significant efforts to add additional citations to multiple scholars, only to see entire sections and paragraphs deleted. As a new user I've been reading about "good faith" and "please do not bite newcomers", but I've not seen any of this extended my way so at this point, whatever, I give up. TracedInAir (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TracedInAir reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: Warned) has been closed with a warning to you. In spite of your claims of 'unwarranted persecution' this 3RR report shows you making a series of four edits to the WikiLeaks article such as this one, in all of which you restore a work by Simon Springer to the Further Reading list after others had removed it. You may be blocked if you continue to restore mentions of work by Simon Springer without getting the consensus of other editors on the talk page that the reference belongs in the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing things from our perspective

Hi TracedInAir. I'm sorry you've had a rough start to editing here - I can assure you that nobody has a personal vendetta against you or any academic. Hopefully I can explain why people have been suspicious of your edits though and you can then try to change things for the better. From the edits that you have made, nearly all have cited papers by the same author - generally speaking, when we see editors doing this it is because they are the author. Sometimes they think that they are improving the project, but other times it is clear that the only reason they are doing so it to add references to their work (i.e. spamming). From our perspective, when we see this happening, it makes more sense to undo the edits to be on the safe side rather than keep them. Can I ask why it is that you are only adding references to the same author? To negate the concerns of other editors, I would advise that you cite a wider range of work in the future, and perhaps work on improving one article more significantly rather than adding a short snippet to many different, wide-ranging articles. I should warn you though that if you continue on the same path, then it is very likely that you will be forcibly stopped from editing. I hope that that is not necessary. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I did add more than a single author in an attempt to fill out the discussion, but sure, in some of my initial entries I focused on a single author. I realized the error (after being pounced on) and went back and attempted to expand the discussion further, only to find my edits repeatedly deleted. I then reverted to my own edit, and attempted to add more context and additional authors, but each time I returned to check the entry the additional material I added was deleted. So all my efforts to "make good" were undone too. At times this was to delete all the extra work I put in and other times it was to single out just the author in question and leave the rest of what I did in place. So despite to clear relevance and importance of this author's work to the debates it was deleted and yet the other authors work's that I added were left in tact. Why? At times this even meant deleting appropriate citation where there clearly should have been a reference, which is basically vandalism in my view as it undermines the quality of the entry. All of this was time consuming and frustrating for me, and honestly if Wikipedia is this much of an effort to get involved with, then forget it. My time is better spent contributing elsewhere. TracedInAir (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, every edit you have made from this account and not logged-in as 154.20.33.119 (talk · contribs) has added mentions of Simon Springer. Adding a few other references on the end of them doesn't change that and looks as if you are following the letter but not the spirit of the guidelines. I disagree that there is "clear relevance" and that the works are important - none of them are well cited by other geographers, which is the only way we can tell. By now, you should have realised that the Wikipedia has a problem with this - at least 5 different editors have undone your edits. Doing so doesn't constitute vandalism though, since the edits were all made in good faith to try and protect the integrity of the project. If you feel that we are too difficult to understand and work with then there is not much we can do about it. SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, what a welcome introduction to Wikipedia... learn the rules fast or get roasted right out of the playing field! You say "Adding a few other references on the end of them doesn't change that", well again, sorry for attempting to contribute and make good on my mistakes. You and others have already made your assumptions, so any contribution I make now or in the future is subject to intensive, hyper scrutiny and the principle of good faith is certainly not being extended, so congratulations, you win... I'm out. TracedInAir (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

TracedInAir is a new user, although as the COI noticeboard has shown, there is a history of excessive and spammy mentions of Simon Springer dating back to 2010. This area is covered by WP:ACADEMIC. Wikipedia is not an academic research journal, and generally regards notability as being derived from mentions in reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Philippe Le Billon and Jamie Peck were Springer's PhD supervisors, so better delete them too since that is cutting a bit close. Throw in Derek Gregory as well as I believe he was a committee member. Edward Said and Michel Foucault appear to be quite influential on Springer's thinking, so that probably makes their entries as bit "spammy" too. If you're going to erase Springer entirely from this website you better do it right. Looks like someone already got the the Edward Said entry. Great work! Now we have an entry that suggests "Saïd’s scholarship remains critically pertinent to and intellectually relevant in the fields of literary criticism and cultural studies, notably upon scholars studying India... and upon scholars studying Cambodia" with no proper citation to support this where previously one existed. Brilliant! TracedInAir (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agonism

Please take a WP:WALK from this article and stop your WP:EDITWAR. Please read WP:OR & WP:PRIMARY & WP:PROMO & WP:SPAM & WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Your additions are in violation of these and other Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• TracedInAir, in the spirit of WP:WikiProject Editor Retention, I'm going to rephrase Qworty's remarks. It's a good idea not to be too passionate, and to try to be collegial, in discussions of matters regarding application of policy and guideline: please read WP:TIGERS. The links Qworty provides above are all important things to read and follow. These are widely-agreed-upon (that is, with wide consensus) policies and guidelines for content and behavior on this encyclopedia. Editors (including you) unfamiliar with what Wikipedia is and is WP:NOT are quite likely to write or act in ways which go against community consensus (a far better term than "violate", IMHO). Strong feelings about a topic are more likely to hit more tripwires, and incur more chiding. So please accept the comments by the above users, even if harsh, as an attempt a) to get you to fix mistakes and not make them and b) protect the encyclopedia and its goals. You may come to understand that the appearance of continuing to add a particular author (or group of authors) to articles can be seen to be pushing a point of view; this always raises hackles. It may not yet be a habit for you to ask for help around here, but there are several resources, many mentioned above. Not mentioned yet is live editing help via IRC, via your web browser, at http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help, or via IRC client at irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-help --Lexein (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this comment, which is completely understandable and has a much more collegial tone than what I have experienced to date. What I still don't understand though is how it was ever considered legitimate for other editors to retroactively purge any reference to Springer that has every existed on this website? That to me seems entirely disproportionate to the aims of the encyclopedia. In any event, thanks again for your even-handed comment, much appreciated. TracedInAir (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, adding an author not already mentioned or cited, in more than one article, or over time, can be argued to be spamming. Wikipedia is allergic to spamming. When spam-like behavior is noticed, it's more likely to trigger a purge, as you've experienced. So an author/work not yet considered RS will be removed. It always takes a while for authors and articles to be noticed and cited by peers or in the media. It's not good to use Wikipedia to try to raise the profile of an author or their works without evidence of being noticed either in their field or outside it. You may feel strongly that an author is important or relevant, but until other authors or established media cite/review/quote them, Wikipedia can't say so, or imply so. Waiting for sources to organically become Wikipedia-reliable or Wikipedia-notable can become quite frustrating, so it's really better to do something else for a while, as Qworty asserted. --Lexein (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)