User talk:MatthewStadler

Hi Matthew

Having corrected Allan Stein, perhaps you could check The Sex Offender as it could do with a bit of additional work, Tony 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Although it often seems a very distant goal, all material in Wikipedia articles is meant to be cited to published, reputable, third party sources.
Keep the Wikipedia guideline WP:Autobiography in mind when editing articles on your own work.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump.

Again, welcome!

Dybryd 04:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has deleted your edits on The Sex Offender, asking for reference. Can you oblige please. Tony 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Tony, "proof of identity" isn't really the issue, as WP:BIO discourages people from contributing to articles about their own work anyway. And something somebody said on Wikipedia is never a good source for Wikipedia no matter who they are - these accounts are not us!

However, if the author has his research notes from the book, maybe he can direct us to some third-party sources. Dybryd 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing your edits

Hi again. I don't at all mean to discourage you from contributing, but info added should be cited to reliable 3rd party sources. The info that Stadler is gay is sourced to the Columbia University Press book description. When you add other information before that reference link, it gives the impression that the linked page also says Stadler likes bacon, which isn't true.

Has Matthew Stadler ever been published expressing skepticism about an essentialist view of sexual orientation? Does he do so in the Columbia University Press interview? (I haven't read it.) If so, that information is certainly notable, but it needs to be sourced. Dybryd 21:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I hate bacon! This other guy is a fake! TheRealMatthewStadler 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above addition was me of course, using an alternative account name that I created in thirty seconds. You can see that the statements of Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources FOR Wikipedia, no matter who is on the other side of the keyboard. Dybryd 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're coming across as a joke account. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia for fun. Dybryd 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apology

First of all, I apologize for creating the "TheRealMatthewStadler" account. I did so to make the point that there is no way of verifying the identity of any Wikipedia editor, and that the statements of Wikipedia editors can never be taken as reliable sources.

I hoped that it was a bit of flippancy that you would quickly understand, and certainly did not intend to create the impression that I was in any way pretending to be "the real Matthew Stadler" (which is why I immediately logged back in under my primary account to explain the joke). But creating alternative accounts on Wikipedia is frowned on in most situations, so I should not have ignored this guideline in order to make my point.

However, the point remains. Who someone is in real life should never be relevant on Wikipedia -- I have no idea whether you are the writer "Matthew Stadler" or not, and I don't care in the slightest. Either way, you are held to the same standards of neutrality and third-party sourcing when you are editing an article. If you do have a personal connection to what you are writing about, it's especially important that you don't allow self-interest or self-image to give a slant to what you write.

All that said...seven months after your first edit on Wikipedia, I'm a little surprised that you don't better understand the process of how it's edited. I think that you should review the encyclopedia's basic policies, and I've tried to help you do that below:

Dybryd 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing the basics of Wikipedia

Getting started on Wikipedia can be frustrating. People often find that their first few edits -- even on subjects they know well -- are quickly reverted because they haven't quite got a handle on how things are done around here. I suggest reading through a few of the links in the welcome message I left you a few months ago. This will help you to continue contributing without the annoying experience of having your edits reverted as soon as they're posted.

Here are two important quotes from Wikipedia policy. One is from the five pillars of Wikipedia:

"All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory...."

The second is from Wikipedia's verifiability policy:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

In particular, the reasons I removed your note about bacon from the Matthew Stadler article are: 1. The information was not notable. 2. The information was not sourced. 3. It was clear that you had added the information in order to support a particular point of view about homosexuality.

One last note: When you post to an talk page you should sign the comment not by typing out your username, but simply with a row of four tildes like this: ~~~~. When you submit your comment, Wikipedia will automatically transform this into a dated signature. This helps people to follow the conversation and to contact you at your userpage.

I really do hope that you will not be discouraged, and will continue contributing information on your favorite writers. But when you do, you'll get much further if you remember:

* Notability! * Verifiability!! * Neutrality!!!

Cheers,

Dybryd 00:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "major contributor" -- Please remove Conflict of Interest flag

Hi, I am user MatthewStadler. Someone unknown to me made the article about my work, over two years ago. I saw it in Spring 2007, and noticed inaccuracies in the article, so I tried to correct them through edits. However, I had most of my edits rejected because I was not sourcing them correctly. I understand the necessity of sourcing and have done no further work on this article. Recently (December 4) I considered making a major contribution, but in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines chose not to do do so. The article has barely any contributions from me, and certainly no major ones. Please remove the "conflict of interest" flag. Matthew Stadler MatthewStadler (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]