User talk:Kelvin Knight

Professor Knight, on the Aristotelian page that you started I added several books that were then deleted without explanation. I have added them back and also some books that I hadn't added but were also deleted. Who do I complain to about deletions without explanations? Pomonomo2003 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CASEP/self-promotion

The links you have added to your organization's website are inappropriate, and would not meet the criteria for external links even if they had been added by a neutral editor. While it is desirable to have experts editing Wikipedia, you should be very cautious in avoiding any edits that could appear to be self-promotion or, even worse, efforts to remove references to your competitors. For example, it is wrong to add a link to your own MacIntyre bibliography, and it looks quite bad that you are at the same time removing links to others' MacIntyre bibliographies. (I am assuming that the edits from this anonymous London UK IP address -- and this one and this one, which also shows bibliographic deletions -- are also yours.) In any such grey area, please bring up the matter on an article's talk page and wait for a consensus of other editors' that such changes are really neutral improvements to the encyclopedia.

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Wareh (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAREH, I don't know who you are as you are hiding in anonymity. You are making a joke of Wikipedia, I am rushing, but several weeks ago I deleted dead links to bibliographies of MacIntyre's work. I take it that you reinstalled them without bothering to click the links yourself. I suggest that you do so now. Having found that they are dead, and - if you can be bothered - check the link I put in to confirm that the bibliographies there are fully up to date, I would very much hope that you will undo the damage you are doing This is appalling, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I have been a hearty apostle for Wikipedia, and I'm shocked to myself encounter the kind of behaviour about which I've previously been told, and previously discounted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.89.204 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have let stand your readdition of the bibliography at Martha Nussbaum and appended it to the list of the other two (with working links) at Alasdair MacIntyre. However, I hope you can yourself click on a couple of links above (especially for WP:COI and WP:EL) and realize that (for good reasons I'm sure you can appreciate), drafting and redrafting encyclopedic content by citations to oneself is against Wikipedia policies, as is a campaign to link a website with which you are affiliated. Self-linking of this kind should be preceded by an effort to get a consensus of independent editors on an article's talk page, to make sure personal interest doesn't trump Wikipedia's ordinary standards, which aspire to neutrality. When you consider the deletion of references to competing treatments at Aristotelianism (please see Talk:Aristotelianism), the presumption against the self-links (remembering: if they are self-links, they violate the policies linked above, period) will not seem so strange. In short, these CASEP links got removed prejudicially because they seemed to be part of a wider (and less appropriate) campaign to promote Kelvin Knight and CASEP. (Moreover, by not reverting at Virtue ethics and Aristotelianism, you seem to acknowledge the difference between valuable resources like bibliographies and links to the CASEP home page that are questionable and appear to be self-promotion.) Wareh (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]