No edit summary |
Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
Orangemike...I again request you compare my edit with Dr Stith's. We both cite our books. Please explain the difference. You have lost valuable information due to the selective and therefore mis-application of "rules". [[User:Stevonmfl|Stevonmfl]] ([[User talk:Stevonmfl#top|talk]]) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
Orangemike...I again request you compare my edit with Dr Stith's. We both cite our books. Please explain the difference. You have lost valuable information due to the selective and therefore mis-application of "rules". [[User:Stevonmfl|Stevonmfl]] ([[User talk:Stevonmfl#top|talk]]) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
*Steve, get something straight. There is no evidence that Stith came here and posted citations from her own book. Unless you have evidence that says she does, please stop making the claim. If another editor cites her, that's how things work. Nobody here has said your research was wrong. The issue is your conflict of interest. |
|||
Now, about your last message to me. I'll skip responding to your personal attacks (again). I have responded to you in the manner in which you addressed me. Considering that your first post to me told me that I had no idea what I was talking about (wrong) and that I needed to move out of the way because you are an "expert", it shouldn't really surprise you that much. You talk to me about my "bad cop attitude", but I'll skip further observations about your attitude. Maybe you're just not used to people who aren't bowled over by your "expertise", but I'm not some grad student or TA who is required to scrape and bow to you. |
|||
The Thomas link doesn't work. I have clicked on it on 2 different computers, as well as cut and pasted the link and tried paring it down. I'd like to hear from anyone that it is working for....besides you. The "many more" works you cited? Where are they? The only link I've seen from you, besides the Thomas one and the link to buy your book, was to a letter YOU wrote to a newspaper. Citing yourself isn't what we considered reliable. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:43, 21 April 2009
|
April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gang has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): googlepages\.com (links: http://forcesgangstoriots.googlepages.com/home).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Gang, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. This information appears to be your original research using your self-published website as the source. Please do not readd the information unless you cad add a reliable source for this information. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You have violated the three-revert rule on Gang. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Stevonmfl. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
- Hi, you may have a conflict with the article you have been editing (Gang). This is being discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. [1] Your comments would be welcome in particular as to whether you have any affiliation with the author of the book you are citing. Thank You Smartse (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- My issue is not whether your book should be included in the article per se but that you should not be adding it as you clearly have a conflict of interest. If the information in your book is suitable for inclusion then I'm sure at some point someone will get along to adding it to the article. Until then I'm afraid you'll have to wait. I/we are not "showing a double standard by allowing Dr. Stith to mention her book" because as far as I know she has not added the information to Gang herself. Instead someone has read her book and thought that it is worthy for inclusion. Smartse (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You need to back up and re-group
Hold on Steve........you are way off base. First, I have said, from the start, that you may very well be an expert in the field. However, I am following Wikipedia policy about self-published sources, self-promotion and conflicts of interest. While you are taking this personally, I am going by the established rules.
Second, as a Ph.D. and author, I'm sure you did some research along the way. With that in mind, you should really know who you are talking to before you start shooting your mouth off and saying things like "Since you have absolutely no expertise in the area of death of thousands of minority children at the hands of other children you need to either bow out or ask other experts". Perhaps if you paid attention for a second when you posted that ridiculous statement to my talk page, you'd have noticed the user box that denotes my membership in the Wikipedia Law Enforcement project. That might give you a clue that maybe my involvement isn't just to be a pain in your ass. Most of my career has been in law enforcement. I am a FGIA certified Gang Specialist. I teach gang recognition and intelligence gathering both under the FGIA and under my agency. I am on more than one gang task force, including the MAGTF (Multi-agency gang task force) that covers Lee and Collier counties (you're in Collier County aren't you?). So don't give me your "I'm better than you and you don't know shit" attitude. Whether you like it or not, we're on the same team. The difference is, you study them and I am on the streets with them and in their houses, dealing with them, their families and their victims.
Third, I actually agree with most of the info you posted. But you need to learn the rules and policies here. Instead of your "I'm going to put it up there no matter what" attitude, I'd suggest you partner with a more experienced Wikipedia editor and work on how to properly get the material included. It almost sounded like you were asking me to do that, somewhere in between your insult and condescention.
Lastly, you will win no points here by insulting people, refusing to discuss changes or failing to go by established policies.
Now, if you'd like to see what we can work out, I might be inclined to assist you since I think the material is valid and would be educational to many reader. But I guess much of that would depend on whether or not you decide if I am even worthy, given that I have "absolutely no expertise" in the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
I am responding to glib and borderline insulting statements and unwarranted treatment by your people re: this most important topic. Please understand there is a huge battle raging between those of us who believe gangs to be a symptom of societal machinations (regardless of country) and therefore preventable and solvable and those who would use force and incarceration on increasingly younger ages to no avail. I have worked over 30 years in this field and the book 12 years to bring this new information to light and it is being extremely well received. More people need to know it is available as the reliable alternative. The reviewer/editor seems to dish insults rather than review content. Forgive me if I seem to have little patience for what is occurring here. The seriousness of the subject affects my toleration level. I request this matter be reviewed by a higher and hopefully more objective and less personality driven reviewer than those who have been deleting this work. If Wikipedia is thus managed and controlled, perhaps it is not as open and available to new ideas as advertised.
You asked for it. I am trying to get beyond your personality and assist the Wikipedia process. Also, I have had first hand experience beyond the narrow focus of a law enforcment view. And I served on more and larger and comprehensive task forces during the period and the model of DOJ targeting is MY MODEL! I was gang czar in Los Angeles for 10 years during the 1980's and experienced the riots. And operated (SUCCESSFUL) anti-gang ops since 1975. You denigrate my work and expertise and it is not at all appreciated. Stevonmfl (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't denigrated your work. I was very explicit when I said "I actually agree with most of the info you posted" and "I think the material is valid and would be educational to many reader". What part of that was "denigrating" Steve?
I find it odd that you tell me I have "no expertise" in the topic (without even knowing who you are talking to) and restort to name calling (smart alec), but worry about my statement that you study while I do. For that matter, I could turn it around and talk about how you keep "denegrating" the "narrow" law enforcement view. Once again, in my case, you speak about that which you do not know. I'm familiar with the other stakeholders role and personally am involved not only in the enforcement end, but the intervention and prevention ends through my volunteer work.
Again you resort to being condescending. I personally don't care how big or how many task forces you've served on. I can think of people who served as President of the United States that I don't think much of.
You are taking this personally, which shows why the COI policy exists. The "evidence" you've presented have been a link to a letter you wrote to the Naples Daily News, a link to Thomas that doesn't work, and a link to a self-published book. Surely as an academic, you are familiar with the concept of peer review. That is essentially how Wikipedia works. Citing coverage of the material by OTHERS is how it works. Surely with all the coverage you claim, there must be some working links to articles not written BY YOU that we can use.
You want to appeal to a "higher authority"? Sounds like "I want to talk to your supervisor". Guess what? That's already happening. The COI Noticeboard IS a "higher authority". Experienced editors and administrators look at the issue and render opinions.
I had every intention of trying to assist you as much as I could to try to get the info in. To try to help you navigate the rules and policies. I immediately defended your intentions when another editor suggested you be blocked from editing. But I also (incorrectly) figured that at some point, you'd drop the attitude and decide that the material was more important than your ego. Maybe someone else will decide to do that because your smugness isn't making me feel very helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly as a warning to both of you, you seem to be moving towards personal attacks (WP:PA). Remember to discuss the content of edits and not the personalities/expertise (or lack of) of editors. The issue at stake here is conflict of interest and nothing else. As Stevonmfl has admitted he is the author of the book of which he has posted information from. This clearly contravenes COI guidelines about posting information you have written yourself - admittedly it is not forbidden but will always draw attention from other editors as it may not represent a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). I understand you Steve, in that you feel that the Gang article is currently not up to date and that you have expertise that may add to the article. The information you posted is now on the talk page meaning that future editors of gang can see it and add it if they feel fit. If you have any reliably sourced (WP:RS) information (from independent sources) then please add it to the gang page. Your contributions will be appreciated. Steve as you requested a "higher" reviewer I'll see if I can find someone else to take a look at this. Thanks. PS can you please reply to comments on my talk page and not my userpage. Smartse (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- We have stringent conflict-of-interest rules for a reason. You are persisting in adding links to a self-published book, containing your own original research. It should be noted that we do not consider self-published works as reliable sources, whether they are called "textbooks" by the author or not. These edits are not being rejected because of any ideological bias, but because they do not meet our firm requirements of verifiability, neutral point of view, and reliable sourcing. We also expect you to adhere to our purpose as an aggregator of solid secondary sources, not as a venue for original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Orangemike...I again request you compare my edit with Dr Stith's. We both cite our books. Please explain the difference. You have lost valuable information due to the selective and therefore mis-application of "rules". Stevonmfl (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Steve, get something straight. There is no evidence that Stith came here and posted citations from her own book. Unless you have evidence that says she does, please stop making the claim. If another editor cites her, that's how things work. Nobody here has said your research was wrong. The issue is your conflict of interest.
Now, about your last message to me. I'll skip responding to your personal attacks (again). I have responded to you in the manner in which you addressed me. Considering that your first post to me told me that I had no idea what I was talking about (wrong) and that I needed to move out of the way because you are an "expert", it shouldn't really surprise you that much. You talk to me about my "bad cop attitude", but I'll skip further observations about your attitude. Maybe you're just not used to people who aren't bowled over by your "expertise", but I'm not some grad student or TA who is required to scrape and bow to you.
The Thomas link doesn't work. I have clicked on it on 2 different computers, as well as cut and pasted the link and tried paring it down. I'd like to hear from anyone that it is working for....besides you. The "many more" works you cited? Where are they? The only link I've seen from you, besides the Thomas one and the link to buy your book, was to a letter YOU wrote to a newspaper. Citing yourself isn't what we considered reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)