User talk:James Hannam

g'day!

Welcome!

Hello James Hannam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

aug 2007

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Relationship between religion and science, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

As I said in my edit summary, if you think your article merits inclusion, then you as the author, will need to make your case on the talk page, rather than adding it yourself. Edit warring, if it achieves anything, will probably guarantee that the article is never included and probably get you blocked. ornis (t) 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed by Ornis above, I removed links you have put on a number of pages because they constitute a conflict of interest. You are promoting yourself and your own research, and it does not appear to be peer-reviewed, hence you'll have to find reliable secondary sources to prove your expertise in the subject and make a case on why your articles should be added to the pages you edited.--Boffob 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to Wikipedia as a professional historian are very welcome. Unfortunately, as stated in Wikipedia's guidelines on external links: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." Since the articles to which you are linking are on a website publicising your book, I hope you can understand why other editors might construe your addition of the links as advertising.

However, it would be highly appreciated if you used your specialist knowledge to improve articles on any of your areas of interest. You are allowed to cite your own published works as sources when editing an article (see "Citing oneself".) EALacey 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Relationship between religion and science. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way. I write my own articles so they are not vandalised by know-nothings with time on their hands. You are asking me to to waste my time writing here so that what I say can be edited by people with lots of prejudice and time, but no knowledge. I did try once and was involved with the great library of alexandria article. Never again. The know-nothings always win because they have no other life and no need to research. My links improved wikipedia because they provide referenced, factual and scholarly articles. That should be what matters, not who posted them. Why should I waste my time arguing with people who simply reject anything that disagrees with their prejudices. Now, kindly put my links back. James Hannam 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite some attitude you've got there. Look, this isn't a free for all, there are policies and guidelines to editing, that exist for good reason. If you aren't prepared to abide by those policies, then yes, you are wasting your time. ornis (t) 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil, as there is no need to get angry. Really, instead of adding the links directly on the articles, put them up for discussion on the talk pages first, as indicated by the conflict of interest guidelines. Don't assume that the majority of wikipedians are against you. Without the conflict of interest, others and myself would not have removed the links in the first place (and here's a proof of that statement)--Boffob 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do as Boffob suggests as I am interested to see how a conflict is resolved. But I am angry because I put a lot of work into what I do and you removed the links without ever thinging about what they led to. I have experience of wikipedia which was deeply unpleasant. I hope it is not repeated. James Hannam 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. You must realize that a number of Wikipedians look out for spam and, by extension, conflicts of interest, as certain behaviors can be tell tale signs of either. So links from posters exhibiting such behavior can be quickly removed with just a simple invocation of WP:COI or WP:SPAM. Now it may take some time to get a few replies on talk pages, but by doing so you insure that, once approved, the links you want to add will not be removable without further discussion (so then, you can revert removals by pointing at the talk page).--Boffob 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the link on the Scholasticism page because your link was relevant to the article. However, looking at your talk page, you might take an attitude that is a little less aggressive and confrontational. This would help your case somewhat, and you can expect limited support from me if you persist in being 'angry' about things. Hope this helps. edward (buckner) 07:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, Edward, for putting the link back. But this only really proves my point. All the links were good and relevant but were removed by other editors without considering what they were on the presumption that they were spam. Thus, my anger. I've calmed down now and put a link on a talk page for one of the pages as suggested. The trouble is, I am now involved with a dispute with one of the editors which is exactly the sort of thing I don't have time for. So you see, ultimately these things are determined by who has the time to hang around and win the contest, rather than on the quality of the material itself. The person objecting to my link has not challenged the content or quality, merely manufactured an objection that would see almost every link on the page taken down. James Hannam 08:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always hard, given that WP is mostly non subject-matter experts. But I am a sort of expert in this area (I have Ph D in history of ideas related subject, and was a student of the late Christopher Williams, who was a noted Aristotelian scholar) so perhaps I can help here. I reinstated another of your links on the inquisition FAQ. But remember, stay cool, and be polite at all times. edward (buckner) 09:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. As I've said, I've calmed down and know what to expect now. I'm proceeded along the lines suggested by Boffob. James Hannam 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax et bonum edward (buckner) 09:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]