User talk:SanFran55

Welcome![edit]

Hello, SanFran55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Seth Abramson. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

Do you have an association with Seth Abramson? It's the only Wikipedia article you've edited, and your edits often seem to add WP:PUFFERY to his page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, though I did note that you added an obscure book review attacking Abramson mere hours after it was published, while not adding in other reviews that were published weeks ago. Did you pen the Herald review yourself? I think more importantly you are editing angry, which is impermissible. You are deleting quotes because you dislike how they are framed, rather than reorganising them, and making factual claims (as one example, about how many academics are editors) without any substantiation. I of course had no issue with the Herald review, as a review is a review, but your other edits clearly betray some animosity. I think a cooldown period is warranted. SanFran55 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, should you wish to talk through this rationally it is my pleasure to do so. For instance, I imagine "journalist" was used in place of "columnist" because (as you now concede) the latter lies within the former category rather than beside it, and Abramson does not only pen columns. For instance, Proof of Collusion is not a column, but it is a work of journalism whether one admires it or not. So you make the article less accurate when you change "journalist" to "columnist." Just so, to be the editor of a "Best American" series is a noteworthy (WP:Notability) marker which you are seeking to erase from the article under a spurious claim that all academics are editors, which you've already begged off from. SanFran55 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Proof of Collusion is not a work of journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you are the author of the Herald piece. I think that's fine, but your view of what the work is does not comport with how it has been reviewed, marketed, or discussed by others. I am sorry you are so upset; I think you getting your review included in the article should be enough for you, though. SanFran55 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, as you did at Seth Abramson, you may be blocked from editing. Please familiarize yourself with some of the content in the links I left you two and a half years ago. The fact that you've been an SPA for such a long time does not help you in arguing against a COI, but makes it more likely than a new account only interested in one thing at a time. JesseRafe (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]