User talk:Hookedx

Welcome!

Hello, Hookedx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Scott F. Wolter, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2nd edit

You are removing properly sourced material about you that you object to. The material seems to meet our policies and guidelines. If you think it doesn't meet our policy on biographies on living persons you can complain at WP:BLPN. As you continue to delete material critical of you I've raised the issue at WP:COIN, our conflict of interest noticeboard, where you may wish to respond. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Scott F. Wolter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Scott F. Wolter, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. TheArguer _{SAY HI!} 20:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Wolter, there is a procedure for deleting articles that needs to be followed. It is not the case that a subject of a biography can simply say he or she doesn't want to be in wikipedia and then have the article deleted. Article's are only deleted if they violate our guidelines and rules for content. Since you are the subject of the article you should not be editing it at all. You can read more about the policies for biographies of living persons here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. If you want to have the article deleted without going through the standard procedure your best bet is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's team of volunteers at info-en-q@wikimedia.org, with a link to the page in question and details of the problem.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolter

I would like to extend the olive branch to you Wolter. I see this quite a bit. An editor with good intentions comes to Wikipedia and decides to write an article about themselves and their work. The problem is that you, and many others, start writing an article as the first thing, rather than reading about how to write an encyclopedic article. With no moderation or rules, every single person could come to Wikipedia and write an article about themselves. Whether they were a high school student to a movie star, and everything in between. Wikipedia would sudden be filled with useless articles about non-notable people and subjects. it would essentially be an impractical database of knowledge and information. First and foremost, its highly discouraged that you write an autobiography. Please read WP:BIO. Secondly, in order to have a biography of a living person, they must meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Please read WP:BLP. It's quite a lengthy read, but ensures that only articles about notable & historic individuals that have reliable and third party publications about them are written about on Wikipedia. If you feel you are one of those people then you will need to find some extremely well known independent publications where you are the subject and insert them into the article. If you do not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline then you should in fairness not have an article about you. Not every person that writes a book gets an article. People who write award winning and largely distributed material sometimes do -- but not always as well. Please read WP:NBOOK and WP:SCHOLAR. Again, its a lot of read, but if you put in the time, then the encyclopedia will put the time into your contributions as well. Mkdw ^talk 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw, I sincerely appreciate the gesture and have no personal issue with Wikipedia. It is a well-intentioned, extremely helpful medium for the public and often rely on it for quick and easy information. This unfortunate situation is an extension of my dissapointing experience with academic types and the Kensington Rune Stone. The primary issue, IMO, is I am a licensed professional, not an academic. In their eyes my work is percieved as somehow inferior regardless of the fact that my very livelihood is at risk for substandard or unethical performance. Further, my KRS work was peer-reviewed (in spite of claims to the contrary) and must be defendable, under oath, in a court of law. Based on my experience, the bar of competence and ethics for academics is far lower. I have been "assigned" to sensitive government projects such as the forensic investigation of fire (heat) damage at the Pentagon after 9-11, yet called a "fringe" scientist (whatever that means) when my geological findings on archaeological artifacts are at odds with the "accepted" findings of scholars. The situation here involves a disgruntled former co-author who after glowingly endorsing my work, now repeatedly tries to undermine me personally and professionally after being convinced he isn't getting enough attention or credit. I don't believe the recent negative additions to my bio, the very day my new series premiered, was a coincidence. To be quite frank, I don't need this garbage and instead of having the KRS further clouded by people with agenda's, I prefer my bio be removed completely. I'm not the one to say if the public is better served or not by my presence here, and will accept legitimate criticism when warrented, but I will not allow such an important artifact and the history it represents continue to be casualty of selfishness. Thanks for your understanding! I'm done now...Hookedx (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't believe the recent negative additions to my bio, the very day my new series premiered, was a coincidence." I can assure you it was. I am British and had never heard of you or of the Kensington Runestone. I happened to notice that one of my fellow-contributors, who tends to be interested in the same topics as me, had been working on articles in that area and I came upon yours and tried to find out more. Web searches led me to the conclusion that the article as it stood was very one-sided, making it appear that your theories were more widely accepted than they are. So I added material in an attempt to achieve the "neutral point of view" we aim for on wikipedia. Had I wished to defame you, I could have quoted at greater length from Dr Nielsen's articles, but I restricted myself to general statements which reflect the existence of a disagreement between yourself and Nielsen about the facts. Deb (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]