User talk:Jbricklin

Sciousness[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sciousness, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://amapedia.amazon.com/view/Sciousness/id=432401. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jbricklin, 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 messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --JForget 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Scinousess[edit]

The article was deleted as a candidate per speedy deletion because it was an article that provided little or no context on the subject (see Wikipedia: Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles and points 1 and 3 of it) no necessarily for the copyright violation issue if it is the case (could have been a bot error). The article, when I deleted it was virtually just a quote from a book and can be easily included in the William James (I presume that it is the philosopher/psychologist) article with a redirect link of Scinousess to William James. I've userfied the deleted article so to give you an occasion to improve the article, because if I restore the article in this current version chances are it may be tagged for deletion or speedy deletion or transwikied to Wikiquote as it contains only a quote and that William James as a page at Wikiquote with a series of quotes from all his work. (see:User:Jbricklin/Scinousess for the current version). This quote can also be included in the Wikiquote article of James if you wish to do so - if it's not all ready done.

However, if you are able to improve the article enough and have some content on the subject and that also meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines you can ask for deletion review or an administrator to see if it can get. However, what does not help for this title, as that I have found nothing - no pages on Google on the subject thus it may be very hard to build an encyclopedic article with that few content, so it may be best for you to merge the quote with the William James article for now in a section somewhere in the article, until you find more info if it is possible and also send the quote at Wikiquote, if it's not already there. JForget 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, made a typo which it didn't detect, so it gives almost 700 000 ghits. Anyways, please improve this article so it is at least it is encyclopedic via before asking for a restoration of the article (doesn't matter it is a stub). Thanks! User:Jbricklin/Scinousess JForget 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought you would have worked on that article with the link I've provided. Ok I will restore it, but be warned that Scinoussess in the current form is a speedy delete candidate per lack on context. Do the improvements right away or the article may be submitted to AFD or speedy deletion by another user. --JForget 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is restored for now, please do the improvements right away before someone flags it for speedy deletion. --JForget 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sciousness and William James and Citing Yourself[edit]

Noticed all the work you did on the sciousness article, it's looking more encyclopedic. Thank you for all that work. Question for you: are you the author of "Sciousness", by Jonathan Bricklin, published this year by Eirini Press, ISBN 978-0-9799989-0-4 ??? I assumed you were and removed it from the William James article. I believe it's generally considered spam to add your own works to an article as a reference. Hard to stay neutral and impartial in doing that. If I was incorrect and you aren't the author of that work then please revert my change. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, as far as I understand, incorrect in your specific understanding here about how the general rule against spamming is to be applied. It is more product-based or website-based than idea based. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be forbidding authors from contributing their knowledge. They do not, as long as it is not "original idea creation" and is cited from published sources. If someone keeps going to a bunch of sites and dropping references to their work on the most tangential pretext, that might be cause for concern. But that is not what is happening here. With all due respect, your interpretation is not in the best interest of building an informed, encyclopedic understanding of topics, and nowhere, as far as I can tell, does Wikipedia endorse your understanding. Please revert all. Jbricklin (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Jbricklin (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just checked some more of your older edits and I'm concerned that you've done some promoting of your works on this site. I reverted these as well:

But these are old links, and I really appreciate that the significant work you've contributed to your sciousness article has excluded any links to your own work, even though you're well published on that topic. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reversed my removal of the Free Will citation. It does look relevant and without undo point of view but I'm still concerned. And whenever an author - even a domain expert - posts their own citations it should raise a flag around conflict of interest for the encyclopedia. So while the policy allows citing yourself in some cases (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself) I'd just ask that you please take time to review the following related policies when you have a chance: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No_original_research. I do appreciate your efforts and accomplishments, personally. If you can though, please try to cite neutral, third-party references whenever possible to avoid point of view pushing. Thanks again. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me apologize further. I got triggered when I thought you were promoting yourself on the wikipedia and that just pushed my buttons. But that was my assumption, I did nothing to talk with you about it first, and I'm truly sorry for jumping all over you today. Mea culpa. Independent of my points or critiques, I feel I came on way too strong and you didn't deserve that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Hopefully we'll both come out of this exchange with a better understanding of how authors can best contribute their expertise to Wikipedia. Your suggestions are right on target. And your neutrality concerns are fair points. I just would prefer, as you seem to as well now, to have them raised as debate points on the discussion page before they are used as justification to raze text.

Here here. And thank you for contributing to this grande, collective experiment called wikipedia. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping other James scholars will help round out the article. That would be the best way to shape it. I truly appreciate your collegial spirit here, and apologize for pique in my own tone.

April 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Dean Radin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]