User talk:Johnlocke2

Welcome!

Hello, Johnlocke2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Rklawton 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, can I ask, why you keep removing the {{reflist}} tag, at Napoleon Hill? If it's a problem with a link in the references, removing the tag that lists them, isn't the solution, as, they're still on the page, just hidden. Anyhoo, so long as there are <ref> tags on the page, there needs to be a {{reflist}} tag, to display them. I'm going to replace the tag in question one more time. If you need anything, please, don't hesitate to ask! :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Hill

Please stop deleting the References section and {{Reflist}}-template from Napoleon Hill. If you object to the sole citation contained in it, then tag that citation (with {{failed verification}}, {{verify credibility}} or similar). Removal of References section and {{Reflist}}-templates is vandalism and may get you blocked if you continue to repeat this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The reference link being deleted is nothing more than a link to a commercial web site whose primary purpose is to sell books. The Wikipedia page in question already contains a "See also" link to information about Charles F. Haanel, therefore, the reference link the contributor continues to attempt to add to the page is already duplicative.

It is NOT a "reference link" it is a reference TEMPLATE which allows CITATIONS to be listed. If you disagree to the sole citation, then address that citation where it is contained in the article. Do not remove the {{Reflist}}-template. If you look at the bottom of your edit screen you will see it listed in the "Wiki markup" section -- this is because it (or the equivalent <references/>-template, also listed) is a standard constituent of all well-formatted wikipedia articles. Do not remove the {{Reflist}}-template. And no, it does not "duplicate[] a "See Also" entry on Charles F. Haanel" -- it is a reference per WP:V & WP:CITE! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APOLOGY: I apologize for inadvertently deleting the "reference TEMPLATE." The deleted citation, however, does duplicate information contained in the "See also" link to the Wikipedia page concerning Mr. Haanel. The deleted citation is a thinly disguised attempt to sell books by Haanel. Haanel, in fact, has very little to do with "Think and Grow Rich" and even less to do with Napoleon Hill.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Napoleon Hill, you will be blocked from editing. You apologise but you keep repeating the vandalism, by removing the TEMPLATE yet again. You did not EVER delete the citation, it has been present throughout your repeated vandalism (the code for it is "<ref>[http://www.haanel.com Charles F. Haanel]</ref>"). 'See-also's are optional, while per WP:V citations are compulsory. Therefore if there is "duplication", it is the 'see-also' that needs to go. The citation in question purports to verify the statement:

From 1919 to 1920 Hill was the editor and publisher of Hill's Golden Rule magazine. It was during this time he wrote a letter to Charles F. Haanel in which he praised his book The Master Key System. In the letter he writes: "..I believe I ought to inform you that my present success and the success which has followed my work as President of the Napoleon Hill Institute is due largely to the principles laid down in The Master Key System."

That it is "a thinly disguised attempt to sell books by Haanel" is irrelevant. The issue is whether it (1) is a WP:RS (if not, then tag the citation, NOT the template with {{verify credibility}} & (2) verifies the statement (if not, then tag the citation, NOT the template with {{failed verification}}.

I would conclude by requesting that you cease and desist editing wikipedia until you LEARN WHAT YOU'RE DOING! You clearly currently don't have a clue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Napoleon Hill. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: Sadly, Hrafn, apparently knows little, if anything, about Napoleon Hill and how widespread information is about him. I suppose Hrafn would have us "cite" references to support the statement that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address or wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. An editor who knows little about Hill would probably better serve the Wikipedia audience and would exhibit some sense of reasonable discretion, by refraining from taking a meat cleaver to the thoughtful work and expertise of others who do know what they are talking about. Indiscriminate editing such as this wastes contributors' time and deprives readers of useful and accurate information. "Napoleon Hill" has been a household name since the 1930s. His book "Think and Grow Rich" has never been out of print even for a day since 1937. It is listed among "BusinessWeek" magazine's Top 15 nonfiction books on business every quarter and has been for years. Hrafn arbitrarily excises generally known factual material, without basis and to the detriment of everything Wikipedia stands for and is intended to accomplish. I do not intend to contribute anything further to this article because it is clearly a waste of my time and almost four decades of research into Napoleon Hill's life and his work.