User talk:Antiselfpromotion

Someone said my username may be inflammatory. Should I change it? I do not think it is wrong to be anti self-promotion on Wikipedia. I try to be even more careful and thorough than the average editor in nominating articles for deletion.Antiselfpromotion (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unfortunately Wikipedia turned into a little bit of a witch-hunt for the "small folks" who haven't really reached the moon, but still enjoy some sort of accomplishment worth sharing (full disclosure, There's an article i'm defending annotated as AfD, not by Antiselfpromotion though). Perhaps there should be some other site then for issues of this nature? it probably already exists, but the point is, the strength behind wikipedia is on holding the long tail of documented knowledge. By screening so consummately you help destroy the halo effect behind this great site and really; if you have to limit the amount of data you enter TO wikipedia, then; what's the point? (btw, here's a quick list of sites which may, may not elucidate this point further http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowritescomments http://www.therssweblog.com/?guid=20060410082920 or ... sigh http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+sucks ).

Its perfectly understandable for Wikipedia to strive for data purity and clarity, however. Ive just never understood why wikipedia doesn't have a category to tag "self aggrandizing" entries. Deletion is so. final.

Anyways, the reason I began writing here was, other than to try the futile exercise of argument on an issue long lost to wikipedians, I read your user statement and found a bit that caught my attention. It reads: "self-aggrandizement, marketing, fraud and other kinds of dishonesty". Watch out: for however annoying Marketing and Self Promotion (i.e., marketing) are, they aren't forms of "Dishonesty".

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.150.172.234 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I understand what you are saying and it is something about which I will think more. A tag that said THIS PAGE LOOKS LIKE IT PROMOTES ITS SUBJECT OR IS WRITTEN FROM A SELF-AGGRANDIZING PERSPECTIVE would remove much of my concern but run against wikipedia's policy of searching for a neutral point of view for all pages. I do not know what the best overall approach is but I am trying to help wikipedia be what current policies and guidelines strive for. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danah Boyd

FYI, I reverted your change to Danah Boyd, because it was a bit extreme to wipe out half the article. If you'll check the talkpage, you can see that there has been extensive discussion about the article by multiple editors, and the current version is considered to reflect consensus. If you disagree, you are welcome to continue editing the article, but it's probably best to work on small sections at a time, rather than making sweeping changes as you did. You are also more than welcome to participate at Talk:Danah Boyd to suggest any further major changes. Best, --El on ka 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) Since it's a contentious article, it would probably be best to explain your reasoning on the article talkpage, and see what other editors think. --El on ka 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, good idea. i don't know why i didn't do that already, but i'll do it now Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi Anti-- You have recently made edits to a number of pages I watch, such as Social network and Social capital. I have since looked through your account and your editing record. I think I understand what you are trying to do, and your stated goals are good. However, your current editorial approach is too disruptive to achieve them. On the pages I watch, you have removed large chunks of cited material. You appear to have started edit wars on a number of other pages, such as Danah Boyd. Also, as far as I can tell, you may be going after all articles edited by Bellagio99--this borders on harassment and is most unwelcome. I strongly urge you adopt a less confrontational approach to your edits. You may also want to pick your targets better: are highly respected senior scholars really the best ones to start with in your effort? And, most importantly, please be more considerate to your fellow editors. Respectfully yours, DarwinPeacock (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, but I believe you have grossly misinterpreted several of my edits without looking at them carefully enough. I do not routinely remove large blocks of text. I have done so on a few occasions, with detailed explanations and usually with discussion. I am not following Bellagio99 and have edited only a small portion of the pages on which he works, and I have already explained in the relevant talk pages why I have done so, which is to correct the same systematic self-promotion by that user. I have never been inconsiderate. I have never started or even participated in an edit war to my knowledge. I have not 'started' recently, nor have I systematically 'targeted' any sort of senior scholar. So far as I know, the only such scholar whose article I have worked on is Barry Wellman, an article that is noted here and elsewhere for its conflicts. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anti-- It's definitely possible that I am misinterpreting this, and I am sorry if I am (and yes, it does not look like you were edit warring--that was too harsh a judgment on my part; and you are good at discussing your edits). But going by the editorial response you are getting on Talk:Barry Wellman, I'm not the only one who gets a bad feeling from your recent edits. It looks to me like your judgments of what is and is not notable about academic topics disagrees with that of many editors. People like Harrison White and Barry Wellman are highly admired intellectuals who have made significant contributions to knowledge through decades of hard work. Removing lists of their awards just comes across as petty and spiteful, as does deleting their accomplishments from other pages. In my opinion, the presence of some COI editors on these pages do not call for this pattern of action given that the information is factual and that these scholars have made very real contributions to human knowledge. Sorry if this is harsh--I do appreciate your goals. But I think there are far better targets to pick on Wikipedia. Yours, DarwinPeacock (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s., if you were dedicating this kind of attention to companies that have their PR departments edit their Wikipedia pages, or pages by town boosters, or plugs for commercial products--all of which are frequent abuses of Wikipedia and deserve lots of editorial attention--I would be a big fan of your work. DarwinPeacock (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Wellman

Hi Anti, keep the good work up - Barry Wellman is a menace. Just take a look at how he has imposed himself on this article: Network society. Even the admin know he is editing himself into Wikipedia under a pseudonym, but they do nothing about it. He is spreading himself to articles like a virus - he has to be stopped --92.16.239.156 (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=Job still to do

Admin has come clean on Wellman - Good work so for Anti! --78.148.51.201 (talk): Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Barry_Wellman —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Matt Cohler

I agree with your recent edits to Matt Cohler's article. I wanted to ask, do you think the article should be deleted or merged with another? Is he a notable enough figure?

Thanks NCSS (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

danah boyd at nyu

What do you think about this as documentation of her non-trivial affiliation with NYU?

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/2011/9/23/danah_boyd_Joins_MCC_as_Research_Assistant_Professor

Bellagio99 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead references

Thank you for the advice regarding what to do with dead references. I will apply that convention to my future editing. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. For clarity, you should check out WP:DEAD. jhawkinson (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

define "self promotion"

You should be clearer in your mind what it is you're about here. If you are not saying that people who strive to be better persons, to achieve in human society, even if only for their own purely selfish purposes are necessarily the target of your jihad here then you may want to be clearer about the difference between that kind of self promotion and the bad kind. Since most people at least claim to be in the first class, and try to present themselves as such, this may be an issue for you. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]