User talk:AcademeEditorial

Welcome![edit]

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:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AcademeEditorial, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi AcademeEditorial! 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 experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. addition of inappropriate tags and citations. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. I understand your concerns and the reasons for placing warning tags. I also believe you are willing to hear my clarifications. I was not aware that in the course of a discussion I should not make edits. I did this in good faith to improve the article and bring more references. Being new to the Wikipedia protocols and technicalities might have resulted in what messily appears as “disruptive edits”. In real-life I am an academic specializing in philosophy. I do not have a connection with the subject of the article, but I am intellectually interested in his research and of other academics in the field. I used to make occasional edits in philosophy on Wikipedia without adopting a name. I had a bit of time after the end of the semester this summer to contribute to Wikipedia. One of my motives was an incident with a graduate student who used Wikipedia as reference and resulted in negative evaluations of the thesis as per the criteria of reputable universities. Given that I occasionally follow the news of the Wikipedia article being discussed, and those of other academics in related fields, I was concerned about a deletion request being made by a user who did not specialize in academia. I hence became engaged in the process. Given that I am new to this, I tried to find ways to bring this to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors to serve as independent objective referees/assessors. It became clearer to me as the process was unfolding that it has its internal self-corrective integrity - You are clearly an experienced editor, with sound knowledge as librarian. One side-comment to consider (generally and independently form the article being discussed) is that: “chapters” in anonymously-peer-refereed edited volumes (published by Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge, Brill, etc.) are nearly equivalent to anonymously-peer-refereed “journal articles”, this is the case in the humanities, unlike the criteria of the natural, applied, and social sciences) - I was hesitant at first to write this whole clarification, but I then felt it is vital to do so given the integrity editors like you are bringing to the process, and that clarifying my actions ultimately serves the same purpose, although my contribution to Wikipedia will remain minimal given the limited time I am able to dedicate to it. Thanks anyway (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Edits can be made to improve articles during AfD. The issue is probably of perceived conflict of interest (and it could have been considered disruptive editing if you continued to edit when asked to pause). I have just noticed your new user page. I would just like to comment on two aspects:

in Wikipedia non-academics make decisions on specialized academic issues with equal privileges as experts — some are experts in the field and others not (and many editors don't disclose who they are), but what matters is using reliable sources (ideally not self-published) to summarize them in due weight (here again some editors have more experience than others doing this successfully, of course).
this online forum — Wikipedia is a bit special: its talk pages and noticeboards are not forums, the platform is also not a popular social media, blog, web host or directory/catalog. Just an online encyclopedia.

You probably noticed that I'm the one who invited DGG over. I did not know how to vote in the AfD personally. DGG has extensive Wikipedia experience and is not a "deletionist" (see mt:Deletionism), but would also not vote keep it if the notability of the subject was not enough for the article to remain. By inviting him to vote, in my mind he's replacing my own vote while I'm meanwhile learning and reading his argument. About the article itself, if the consensus of the debate is to keep it, it really will need to be improved to the standards of an encyclopedia. I'm glad that he also began to do this. Sometimes, even if the article's subject is notable, if the article is completely promotional or incomprehensible to a general public, a delete consensus can be possible (which does not prevent the article from being rewritten from scratch later on). Thanks DGG, for helping out. —Paleo Neonate - 18:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PaleoNeonate for your note and the professionalism with which you followed the discussions etc. As you also can see, I updated my own Userpage introduction to reflect in good faith what you clarified. I also join you in thanking DGG for helping out too, and for his reply to my note on his talk-page.