User talk:Garrett Jones

Welcome!

Hello, Garrett Jones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brian 11:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion.--Theseekerstar5 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me quite excessive. I've just looked thro' what appears to be your entire contribution record, & find nothing that could be described as disruptive or vandalism. You may not be following policy, but then lots of people don't, usually thro' ignorance. The links posted to you above should give you the basic ideas. Peter jackson (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling rather bemused by the complexity of Wikipedia's editing process. Everything seemed refreshingly simple until, a few days ago, I discovered that most of my contributions have been annihilated. Although Brian wrote to me in June 2006, it is only now, more than two years later that I have clicked on 'My talk'. I then find that 'the seekers star 5' accuses me of disruptive vandalism and Peter Jackson tells me I have not been such a bad lad. Nevertheless I find even the biographical entry for Garrett Jones has disappeared. When I search for Garrett Jones I find I can choose between unadorned Garrett Jones and Garrett Jones (baseball) but whichever I click on, I go to the baseball player. Can anyone tell me what goes on? Garrett Jones (Garrett Jones (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying you made more contributions than the 5 listed. If so, then my comparative exoneration becomes moot. I've just had a look at Wikipedia:User contributions & the wording there seems to imply that, if the article you contributed to is deleted, all mention of your contributions disappears from your contribution log. I've been here some time, but keep learning new things. Peter jackson (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem Peter that nobody really understands how Wikipedia actually works. Who, for instance, is Theseekerstar5 (talk}? When I click on his page I draw a complete blank. I have not made any contributions beyond giving the new URL for my website for around two years. I just happened to click on my name a week or two back and found I had disappeared as had all my old contributions except a brief reference to my 'Tales and Teachings of the Buddha' - and even that had been stripped of the external link to its publisher. I have restored this but have little confidence it will stay. I am giving up on Wikipedia. Garrett Jones(Garrett Jones (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Garrett -- I removed the link to your e-book on the bisexuality page because of WP:COI. Please review the policy. Cheers! Eponymous (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Reposted from Talk:Bisexuality[reply]

I'm afraid that to me this does feel like censorship. [a] we are not now talking about a Wikipedia article but about a book in the bibliography to an article; [b] the book in question was accepted for some years then suddenly disappeared along with every other reference to its author in Wikipedia; [c] the author was accused of vandalism and self-advertising; [d] one of his books, also wiped from Wikipedia, "Tales and Teachings of the Buddha" is in its second edition, is in most English area university and large public libraries, is cited in the "International Encyclopedia of Sexology,vol 3 sec 5" and been favourably reviewed in the "Journal of Asian Studies"; [e] your devotion to "properly published" sources seems odd in view of what has happened to publishing over recent decades; projected sales are now the dominant criterion, not editorial judgement; [f] your own editors are legion and safely anonymous. Garrett Jones (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

a) the bibliography is part of the article.
b) don't know anything about that, I can only speak for my own actions and the reasons for them.

c) See b -- I cite WP:COI, not vandalism. Self-advertising? What would you call it if I linked my web-published analysis of censorship issues on two websites (with a set of proposed axioms and solutions drawn from several years of participatory observation) into the bibliography of the Wikipedia article on censorship? Would it not be self-promotion, original research, and conflict of interest? (Yes, the articles I refer to exist -- so I take accusations of censorship seriously, as I know the difference between being censored and being peer-reviewed, between being imprisoned or killed for your speech and being politely asked to keep your voice down in the library.)

d) Again, see b.

e) If the policies do not work, there are mechanisms for changing them. It requires consensus. If you think you can successfully change consensus on such a basic core policy, go for it! Start changing minds right here on your talk page. Please note even if you change that policy, it will not open the way for you to post your ebook as a source on an article -- but if you can prove to me that it belongs (and before you ask, yes, I did read it) I'll personally link it to the bibliography. Start by reading WP:SELFPUBLISH.

f) The anonymous legion is Wikipedia's strength. Your use of the word "safely" is something I find vaguely disturbing. You yourself are part of the anonymous legion! You have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as I do, Mr. Jones -- you are a Wikipedia editor, are entitled to make changes to articles (or create new ones) in order to improve Wikipedia, and your edits, like mine, must pass the test of consensus.

I hope this helps you understand my actions, Mr. Jones. Please reply on this page or on my talk page. Eponymous (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm afraid I'm not going to return the compliment because I'm 81 already and time might be short and I want to do a lot else. Anything like a full reply would take a long, long time. There are so many issues, not least - what's the difference between self-publishing, vanity publishing, POD (print on demand) publishing and on-line publishing? I'm very tempted to go on but I have to resist. Anyway thanks for trying. I'm not anonymous by the way. Can be contacted any time at jngjones@msn.com Garrett Jones (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]