User talk:Finisklin

Linkspam[edit]

Please do not spam Wikipedia with links to your own website. Your recent edits have been reverted. Ilkali (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was skeptical about Wikipedia possibilities, at the start; but less so as time went on. It was evident that you would have to establish some editorial control (a delicate matter!), but in my observation you seem to have maintained a pretty good record of objectivity.

That left me surprised that you treated my recent contributions (linking some references to Cormac Burke's website) as "spamming" Wikipedia. Wiki's own entry under linkspam says, "Davison defines link spam as "links between pages that are present for REASONS OTHER THAN MERIT." My reason for making those links was precisely the merit - the inherent interest and worth - of the articles by Burke I referred to. Take the following two for which, to my mind, the evidence of inherent interest (within the relevant topic) and of academic worth is substantial

You removed a reference (under "Concupiscence") to Burke's recent article, "A Postscript to the Remedium Concupiscentiae" (The Thomist 70 (2006): 481-536). The Thomist is the leading thomistic publication in the English-speaking world. If it chooses to publish a 56 page article (very long by their normal standards), it is because the editor considers it an important contribution. That this is so would seem to be borne out by the fact that Italian and Spanish versions have since been published (Annales Theologici 21 (2007): 299-340; Mayéutica 33 (2007) 309-353). The Thomist put it for a while on their website; but now only subscribers can access it there. Burke's website is the only practical way to consult it.

You also removed (under "Contraception") a reference to Burke's article "Married Love and Contraception" in the Osservatore Romano of Oct. 10, 1988. The OR is the official Vatican newspaper, and is very selective in what it publishes. Publication there (especially on a controverted theme) is a clear indication that the article in question is considered to make some new or more clearly articulated contribution to the Catholic viewpoint (I think the newness of Burke's article consists in its anthropological rather than merely theological analysis). The Vatican website does not carry the OR articles, so we are dealing with something of interest which the average reader cannot access except through Burke's website. (Agreed the reference might go better in "Religious Views on Birth control").

Frankly, then, I think we are not dealing with linkspam but rather with how Wikipedia weighs up issues of merit. I could go into some other three or four references made; but why don't you let me know how you see all of this?

Finisklin (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear on the situation here. You have gone from article to article contributing nothing but references to a particular person's works. It seems very likely that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to publicise this man's writings, which constitutes a conflict of interests. Because of this, and because so many of your additions seem lacking in merit (for example, the link you added to the God page, which serves to inform the reader of nothing more than one man's opinions), I believe you are engaging in linkspamming. May I ask what your connection to Burke is?

I ask that you read WP:EL and consider whether your additions are genuinely beneficial to the encyclopedia. Consider what proportion of the Contraception article concerns religious views, and consider what exactly the article you linked to would provide to the average Wikipedia reader. Is the purpose of Burke's article to inform, or is it to simply express an opinion? Ilkali (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to yours of May 18 (the weekend is my only time for catching up): 1. Thanks for referring me to WP:EL which indeed I had not consulted (it took me some time to figure out the meaning of EL: bear with new contributors who have to learn the ropes). I apologize for this; and perhaps now understand better why your first reaction was that I was spamming. But, please let us not stick at first reactions. 2. Let's forget about the God entry which I agree is of little interest (I think I was still trying to see in practice how one makes references). I should add, though, that surely you are exaggerating a bit when you say "You have gone from article to article, etc." In fact I made five or six contributions (including editing a phrase on ecumenism which has no ref. to Burke). 3. BUT - you haven't really moved from your initial suspicions: "It seems very likely that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to publicize this man's writings" [...] "because so many of your additions seem lacking in merit... I believe you are engaging in linkspamming". I gave you two examples of articles of Burke which have plenty of evidence of merit in their own right. Wiki has to decide whether they are a useful contribution or not; but surely the issue is the worth they have, and not any initial personal hunches or beliefs, however derived? 4. I say this because your comment on Burke's contraception article makes me wonder how you tackle these issues. When you ask, "Consider what proportion of the Contraception article concerns religious views", it is very hard not to conclude that you are judging the article without having read it. Precisely the original thing about this article is that it does not invoke any religious arguments at all; it considers contraception exclusively in anthropological or human terms. Here I feel entitled to ask on what grounds you conclude that the average Wikipedia reader could have no possible interest in such an article? Or does Wiki policy exclude a "conservative", but non-religious presentation, of what is undoubtedly a topic of great interest to many? 5. This is where I find your distinction between "informing" and "expressing an opinion" rather hard to follow. Surely Wiki's policy is to provide information, also about opinions, in fields of interest? When you try to give an overall picture of any theoretical or debated topic you have to give some information on precisely the differing opinions. [And if a certain position is expressed in a new or clearer manner, then it surely deserves consideration, at least as a reference? That is my view on the two Burke articles I asked you to comment on]. 6. Looking at random for a Wiki topic that might be "controversial", I went to "Harry Potter". It is very well done, but a large part of it (especially when dealing with religious critiques) gives information precisely about a great diversity of opinions. This I imagine is what your readers would expect. [Incidentally, I saw too that the official (and professedly religious) website of one Laura Mallory, who is declaredly anti-HP (I totally disagree with her), is one of the external links Wiki has accepted]. 7. To come back to the contraception article, may I suggest an entry in your Contraception article [under "Christian Views on Contraception", "Roman Catholic Church" at the end of the "Current View" section]? The entry could say more or less: "For an evaluation of the effect of contraception on marital union, considered not from a theological but from an anthropological non-religious stance, see [ref. and link]..."? 8. You make no reply to my comment on the concupiscence article. In contrast to Contraception this is hardly a topic of broad interest. Nevertheless, you have it in Wikipedia, so some further contribution may be useful. The Burke article is probably the most recent important thing on the topic. If it has appeared in three languages within the space of two years, there must be something to it. There I would make another suggestion. In the section "Catholic teaching on concupiscence", refer to Burke's article in the text: "For a recent critical study of the traditional presentation of concupiscence in marriage, see C. Burke **" [with a ref link]. 9. You ask about my "connection" with Burke. What on earth has that to do with the merit or otherwise of his articles? I think they are original and of enough interest to warrant a reference. Wiki is no doubt entitled to disagree; but surely it should be precisely on the points of merit and/or interest, not on suspicions that I am Burke's grandmother or cousin or agent or Burke himself. 10. I suppose that any reference to a site tends to "publicize" it. But does it follow that this is spamming? May I say that you are in danger of invoking a very arbitrary standard of judgment here, as well as a logic that could end up by leaving the decision as to what goes into Wiki or not, in the hands of just a few people. Then surely you would have defeated your own very founding principles.Finisklin (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a Wikiquette alert about the issue here. Ilkali (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Concupiscence‎, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines. Jaysweet (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of merit[edit]

I am quite used to rational academic discussion on the university level. But so far - on your side - there has been no discussion of anything. First Alkali accuses me of linkspamming (i.e. making "links between pages that are present for reasons other than merit."). I deny that, and ask him to consider the merit of the articles referred to (I hold that they have considerable merit and are a valid contribution to the topics in question. If we are to be rational about this, surely it is up to you to give reasons why you consider that they lack any such merit). He has twice avoided entering into this point - which is surely the point. This is a refusal to discuss. Jaysweet, you give a "last" warning (when was the first?) for "disruptive edits". Have you examined the articles referred to? Then please give some reason why you consider them disruptive. Otherwise I must conclude that you are operating on prejudice and not according to some reasoned procedure. Is this the way a "talk page" is supposed to operate? In your case, I would get some confirmation from higher up that your stance so far is in accordance with Wiki policy. I find it impossible to believe that it is.Finisklin (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, the first warning was issued by Ikali on May 10th.

You are adding a URL to a website you are affiliated with in articles that are only tangentially-related. That is linkspam, and will not be tolerated. If you want to discuss using the book as a reference without using the spam URL, we can discuss whether it is an appropriate reference or not. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception article[edit]

Jaysweet. Traveling for two weeks, but now back to you. On June 12 I sent you what appears below. But it either did not arrive, or else was blacked out. Can we put the issue this way? A link in a contribution, made for reasons "other than merit", is spamming. If the contribution has merit and can only be accessed through the link, then it is not spamming. The issue, then, is one of merit - or of no merit. I presume you accept the distinction made here (if not, please say why). If so, can we rationally discuss the merits of the following proposal. In Wiki's Contraception article [under "Christian Views on Contraception", "Roman Catholic Church" at the end of the "Current View" section], I suggest an entry, more or less as follows, with a linked reference to Burke's article on his site (I repeat, it can only be consulted there): "For an attempt to make an anthropological (non-religious) evaluation of the effect of contraception on marital love, see C. Burke: "Married Love and Contraception" (Osservatore Romano Oct. 10, 1988) [LINK]”. If, when I return to Wiki next weekend or so, I find that this is not on my talk page, nor on yours, then you are clearly exercising a form of thought or opinion control. Is this the Wiki way? In any case, I will allow another period so as to see if something positive happens. If it does not, I will then make the entry as indicated above. If I find that this entry and link are removed, then I have enough of a dossier to show that Wikipedia, at least at your level, exercises censorship, excludes references that could be of interest to readers, with a total and a priori refusal to enter into any discussion whatever on the merit of a contribution.

[to Jaysweet] June 12, 2008 I am beginning to be a bit tired of this discussion - where I find very little discussion. You write "You are adding a URL to a website you are affiliated with in articles that are only tangentially-related. That is linkspam". Wiki's own entry under linkspam says, "Davison defines link spam as "links between pages that are present for reasons OTHER THAN MERIT". If you keep on shifting the terms of reference, we will obviously get nowhere. It is precisely on merit that the references I made to Burke's thought appear (to me) to be a valid contribution to Wiki's pages. You still avoid that issue; or rather put a peculiar pre-condition ("without using the spam URL") to any discussion. Besides, if it is you who in the end decides what is "disruptive" (disruptive of what? of thought or discussion?), then why continue? As I explained to Alkali, the article on Contraception is not available except through the cormacburke website; and this applies in practice to the one on Concupiscence (unless a reader wishes to subscribe to The Thomist website). If you are determined to exclude any reference-links to Burke's website, please say why. Otherwise we are indeed wasting time. I go travelling today, for the next couple of weeks. But am prepared to take up the dialogue again, when I get back. If it is a dialogue. Thanks. P.S.1) I get the impression you are 'higher up' than Alkali. I feel you may not have read our full exchange, so I copy it below. [I quite agree that Burke's "God interview" has little merit (I think I was still using it in experimental-mode as to how contributions or entries are made; and it should have been taken out). For the rest, however, I think they all have merit. But if there is going to be any further discussion we might as well keep it to the two - Contraception and Concupiscence - which you so baulk at]. 2) It is hard to take seriously your dire threats: "Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines". What is implied in this threat is that if I link some reference to Burke, Burke's website may suffer. This could well be ground enough for Burke to take a legal action against Wikipedia. I don't think Burke is the sort of person to do that; but others, in some similar case, might. At the very least, I would suggest that you get your legal people to revise the wording of such threats. Just accessed your talk page to send this; and see you have removed our discussion of a few days ago. Does that imply a total blackout?

[to Alkali. May 24, 2008] In reply to yours of May 18 (the weekend is my only time for catching up): 1. Thanks for referring me to WP:EL which indeed I had not consulted (it took me some time to figure out the meaning of EL: bear with new contributors who have to learn the ropes). I apologise for this; and perhaps now understand better why your first reaction was that I was spamming. But, please let us not stick at first reactions. 2. Let's forget about the God entry which I agree is of little interest (I think I was still trying to see in practice how one makes references). I should add, though, that surely you are exaggerating a bit when you say "You have gone from article to article, etc." In fact I made five or six contributions (including editing a phrase on ecumenism which has no ref. to Burke). 3. BUT - you haven't really moved from your initial suspicions: "It seems very likely that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to publicize this man's writings" [...] "because so many of your additions seem lacking in merit... I believe you are engaging in linkspamming". I gave you two examples of articles of Burke which have plenty of evidence of merit in their own right. Wiki has to decide whether they are a useful contribution or not; but surely the issue is the worth they have, and not any initial personal hunches or beliefs, however derived? 4. I say this because your comment on Burke's contraception article makes me wonder how you tackle these issues. When you ask, "Consider what proportion of the Contraception article concerns religious views", it is very hard not to conclude that you are judging the article without having read it. Precisely the original thing about this article is that it does not invoke any religious arguments at all; it considers contraception exclusively in anthropological or human terms. Here I feel entitled to ask on what grounds you conclude that the average Wikipedia reader could have no possible interest in such an article? Or does Wiki policy exclude a "conservative", but non-religious presentation, of what is undoubtedly a topic of great interest to many? 5. This is where I find your distinction between "informing" and "expressing an opinion" rather hard to follow. Surely Wiki's policy is to provide information, also about opinions, in fields of interest? When you try to give an overall picture of any theoretical or debated topic you have to give some information on precisely the differing opinions. [And if a certain position is expressed in a new or clearer manner, then it surely deserves consideration, at least as a reference? That is my view on the two Burke articles I asked you to comment on]. 6. Looking at random for a Wiki topic that might be "controversial", I went to "Harry Potter". It is very well done, but a large part of it (especially when dealing with religious critiques) gives information precisely about a great diversity of opinions. This I imagine is what your readers would expect. [Incidentally, I saw too that the official (and professedly religious) website of one Laura Mallory, who is declaredly anti-HP (I totally disagree with her), is one of the external links Wiki has accepted]. 7. To come back to the contraception article, may I suggest an entry in your Contraception article [under "Christian Views on Contraception", "Roman Catholic Church" at the end of the "Current View" section]? The entry could say more or less: "For an evaluation of the effect of contraception on marital union, considered not from a theological but from an anthropological non-religious stance, see [ref. and link]..."? 8. You make no reply to my comment on the concupiscence article. In contrast to Contraception this is hardly a topic of broad interest. Nevertheless, you have it in Wikipedia, so some further contribution may be useful. The Burke article is probably the most recent important thing on the topic. If it has appeared in three languages within the space of two years, there must be something to it. There I would make another suggestion. In the section "Catholic teaching on concupiscence", refer to Burke's article in the text: "For a recent critical study of the traditional presentation of concupiscence in marriage, see C. Burke **" [with a ref link]. 9. You ask about my "connection" with Burke. What on earth has that to do with the merit or otherwise of his articles? I think they are original and of enough interest to warrant a reference. Wiki is no doubt entitled to disagree; but surely it should be precisely on the points of merit and/or interest, not on suspicions that I am Burke's grandmother or cousin or agent or Burke himself. 10. I suppose that any reference to a site tends to "publicize" it. But does it follow that this is spamming? May I say that you are in danger of invoking a very arbitrary standard of judgment here, as well as a logic that could end up by leaving the decision as to what goes into Wiki or not, in the hands of just a few people. Then surely you would have defeated your own very founding principles.Finisklin (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[This is Jaysweet's reply: 29 June 2008 (UTC)I removed your original comment because it was long and rambling and a brief skim did not show me anything I really wanted to hear (see WP:TLDR. I will leave these in place now if you want to go on record. If you do choose to re-add the Burke reference, I would encourage you first of all to absolutely not include the URL to his website (see WP:EL for more information). If you do so, it will be removed on sight as likely spam -- if not by me, then by someone else. If you don't believe me, try it, and I'll stay back and watch it get removed by a dozen other people a dozen times over. I would also encourage you to read WP:UNDUE, and possibly WP:NOTE. We just don't go around tossing any opinion into any article. It is not clear to me whether the Burke reference is significant enough to warrant mention -- I initially reverted it because you were obviously going around promoting the book (adding it to several articles while making no other meaningful changes; and unnecessarily including the URL against the WP:EL policy). Maybe, despite your apparent conflict of interest, there is some merit to the reference, I don't know. But you should probably try to make your point about the notability of the reference clearly and succinctly on the article's talk page. I hope this helps. We absolutely do not practice censorship here, but we do engage in editorial control. I hope you can understand the difference. Thanks, and happy-wiki-ing! -- I have added Jaysweet's reply. Finisklin (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[To Jaysweet} Thanks. Perhaps we are beginning to engage in something more like dialogue. BUT, you still have not given any opinion on the merit of Burke's contraception article. That, surely, should be the reason why it be included or not. It seems clear that Wiki (at least as represented by you) remains determined not to accept linking a reference to the article with Burke's website. Why? As I explained before, there is no other way that the Wiki-reader could look at it. Surely your purpose is to facilitate the easy consultation of varying points of view? You may well not agree with Burke's exposition; but if you, or some Wiki controller, exclude some reader from reading it, that is censorship; or as you prefer to say "editorial control". I don't see how that editorial control can be justified unless you read the article in question and point out why you consider it to be of no value or interest - despite the facts that: a) it does NOT (as Alkali, obviously not having read it, objected) contain religious arguments but offers a simple and original anthropological or human analysis; b) its appearance in the official Vatican newspaper is major evidence that it is considered to be a significant contribution to the contraception debate. You say "Maybe, despite your apparent conflict of interest, there is some merit to the reference, I don't know". I still don't understand the "apparent conflict of interest", but I do think you should read the article and if you consider that it has no merit, then say why. I quite understand that you and I may well not agree in our respective positions on contraception. But is Wiki there to present different viewpoints, or only the ones its editors like?Finisklin (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[From Jaysweet I'll tell you what, if you re-add the link, I will leave it alone. I don't know why you are still trying to deny that you have a conflict of interest; nobody goes around adding the same link to a half a dozen different articles and gets really adamant about including the URL unless they are trying to promote something. Anyway, I don't particularly feel like dealing with this anymore. I've pointed you to WP:EL and WP:COI. If you want to re-add the link, go for it, but don't be surprised when somebody else reverts it. --Jaysweet (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, just to clear up any confusion, I do not "represent" Wikipedia. I am an ordinary editor just like you. I am a little bit more familiar with the policies, which is why I pointed you to WP:EL in regards to the inclusion of the URL -- I thought maybe I could help you out in understanding the policies here. But I do not "represent" Wikipedia in any way. As far as, "There is no other way that the Wiki[pedia]-reader] could look at [the article]," that is bullshit. They can just Google for it. Actually, it's a book, right? So include the ISBN number. That is standard practice when referencing books on Wikipedia. You include the ISBN, and then if somebody wants to read the book, they look it up at their library or on Amazon. Did you take a look at WP:EL like I asked you? Also, explain to me again how 100% of your edits to Wikipedia articles have been to add one particular book, complete with URL, to a number of articles, and then you tell me with a straight face that you have no conflict of interest and are not attempting to promote the book? Really?! Come on now, I'm sorry sir, but I simply don't believe that for a second. Anyway, I don't consider this conversation to be productive. Go ahead and add the URL, and watch another Wikipedia editor revert it. It will happen, because adding the URL is against WP:EL. You still have this misconception that you are trying to prove it to me. You're not. I have no authority, I'm just telling you the reality of what will happen if you continue to try and promote this book in violation of WP:EL. You can ignore my advice if you want, but it ain't gonna work out for you. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)]]

This restores parts of our exchange which had been left out.Finisklin (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]