User talk:Philofiler

Philofiler, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Philofiler! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Philofiler

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Philofiler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Raymond Tallis. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Philofiler (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the link to magazine. Happy now?

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iain King may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Now info

You might want to find better ways of inserting your Philosophy Now links into several articles you recently edited. I've noticed you've provided one sentences and a link but little explanation of why those sentences are important. Explain more of the material. I reverted your mention on the Rilke bio because (a) you don't just say essentially "see this for more information" in the lede or body of an article, that's not how to write an article and (b) you need to talk about the idea and provide then support the claim with a reference. Approach it in the body as "Rilke's views, etc. etc...." to explain a little why it matters to understand Rilke better, then provide the link as a reference. As for Berdyaev‎, the material is inappropriate for a lede, I moved it to the section discussing his philosophy. I would advise you to add more about why Putin thinks it was important for his governors to read it. Right now just saying "Putin advised his regional governors to read it" without adding why it was important makes the sentence read like the type of trivia we seek to avoid. Consider this as you look at the dozen or so edits you've done today regarding Philosophy Now material. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you - that is useful advice, and I will seek to act on it in further edits. Philofiler (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Shawshank Redemption may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Philosophy Now]], accessible [http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/The_Shawshank_Redemption here (link], accessed 3rd June 2014.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kevin Warwick may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Now]] magazine, available [http://philosophynow.org/issues/103/News_July_August_2014 here (link - see article 'The Power of AI'], accessed 23rd July 2014.</ref>
].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rsm.ac.uk/academ/ec2011.php |title=The Royal Society of Medicine > Courses > Ellison-Cliffe Lecture |publisher=Rsm.ac.uk |date=11 October 2011 |accessdate=26 May 2013}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Sorabji may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Philosophy Now]] report, available [http://philosophynow.org/issues/103/News_July_August_2014 here (link - see article 'Richard Sorabji, Philosopher-Knight', at bottom of page], accessed 23rd July

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about and linking to Philosophy Now in every edit you have made

Hello, Philofiler. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Philosophy Now, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Although I have a close familiarity with Philosophy Now, I believe the magazine contains many useful and relevant facts which need to be brought to the public attention. However, I understand that you would like it that I do not highlight the magazine itself, which I can do (and will do).Philofiler (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'd "like" it, it's just basic Wikipedia policy that an editor with a conflict of interest shouldn't make edits relating to that interest. Given that the one reference I checked had Philosophy Now misquoting a simple press release, perhaps it would be better to use other sources for whatever information you have learned from reading the magazine. --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You still seem to be adding a link to the Philosophy Now website in every edit you make. Could you clarify whether your "close familiarity" means that you have any kind of conflict of interest regarding the magazine (either professional or personal), as defined at WP:COI? --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such conflict of interest.Philofiler (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Philosopher Michael Davis has noted that an apparent conflict of interest (where you don't have one, but you are behaving in a way that would cause a rational observer to think that you did) can be as damaging as an actual COI. If you're reading things in your Philosophy Now magazine and finding that Wikipedia doesn't cover them, that's fine, but I'd recommend a quick search for another source that backs up the same information before adding it, in future. --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Without wishing to labour the point, I don't believe I even have an apparent conflict of interest. While it is true to say that a majority of my edits on wikipedia are sourced from Philosophy Now, it is fairer and more accurate to say that a majority of my edits are on subjects and from sources which interest me - which is true for almost all wikipedia editors. If you feel any one - or more than one - of my edits are inappropriate in some way, then by all means re-edit them. But my concentration on a single source is not really different than a fixation with a particular sports team, or a myopic focus on a particular type of fauna etc. There cannot be a requirement that all wikipedia editors are generalists.

However, the separate point - that my edits might be seen to be promoting the magazine in some way, is more valid. If my edits are promotional, then this is inadvertant. I will try to reduce the number of links I make to the magazine, while still trying to distill the most useful information from it. This, we can agree, is exactly what wikipedia editing policy requires.Philofiler (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, every single addition you have ever made to Wikipedia has either included a Philosophy Now link, or been an edit to the Philosophy Now article itself. Your personal user page also used to say "More information about Philosophy Now magazine is available on the webpage, here" until you were told to remove it. Up until the point where you explained that you didn't actually have a conflict of interest, this seems broadly indistinguishable from how a person might behave if they were trying to use Wikipedia to promote a magazine. --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]