VLSmithBook
Please note that Wikipedia is not to be used to solicit information e.g. for an unverifiable forthcoming book. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion. A factual, verifiable (where you are not the author(s) of the source), note about a book is permissible. See WP:NOT if in doubt. You may wish to alter your User page accordingly, which presently is mostly about a subject which is not you, is lacking in citations and contains material which infringes the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, which states that you "...must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.134.151 (talk • contribs) 10:26, December 29, 2006
Please do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting your book, Wikipedia is for creating an encyclopedia. It is not for increasing the notability of books. Thank you. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me help you.
I have no connection with VLS. And I don't particularly like him anyway. I am an experienced editor, and am quite entitled to start editing under a new identity, at any time, as you clearly do. However, a perusal of your i.p (and other identity clues) make it pretty obvious that yours is a malevolent presence on Wikipedia and it's not just directed at VLS (the Middle East seems to interest you doesn't it?). Though in his case you only choose to extract negative press reports about him. So you are a hypocrite because, unlike me, you clearly do have a grudge, and you also use one-off identities to damage. You have been told not to solicit for a book without citation so your vandalism is being removed. Also, you seem to be inheriting other i.p addresses to disguise your activities. That's a police matter.
Warning: VLSmithBook / Wikipedia
editI would like to make an intervention, even if it seems jejune. This is for two reasons: first, it happens I have a little information about the so-called Victor Lewis Smith biography project and think it might be useful to issue a warning. Second, I believe this case draws attention to important weaknesses in Wikipedia.
I apologise in advance for the length of this note: I want to make a point rather than enter into debate, so will say all I am going to say now. I am no spokesman for Victor Lewis Smith (more on this later) but having just checked his entry and its history I feel I should say something.
Two writers appear here as contributors under the joint name VLSmithBook: they say in relation to this page, "someone or someones is/are playing silly buggers". Gentlemen, if you are gentlemen, that is rich coming from you. Although I understand it is not traditional Wikipedia custom to include private information, this would seem an appropriate point to do so (my comments also appear on the Victor Lewis Smith discussion page).
I was approached a while back on behalf of the VLSmithBook project (which incidentally I see has already been the source of some discontent on Wikipedia for not being handled in an appropriate manner). No doubt I am one of many who received similar invitations: in my case I met Victor Lewis Smith some years ago, and in a way which led VLSmithBook to make the connection, as well as assume he and I might still know each other (we don't). Although their project seemed, at first sight, reasonable enough, I did not have the time or interest to assist: I explained I had no up-to-date information and did not want to tell tales from the past. With hindsight I am glad not to have got involved, as from examining this page and its history, VLSmithBook seems to be a mischievous project, quite possibly not the "book" or "biography" announced, and certainly one which seeks to embarrass others. For this reason I regret passing on one small piece of information (the name of someone with whom I understand Victor Lewis Smith is still in contact) as I think VLSmithBook has since done him a disservice.
I am happy to use this semi-public, semiformal way of telling VLSmithBook this, as a general warning to others: do not contact these authors (rather controversially they use their VLSmithBook Wikipedia User page to solicit contributions) and if they contact you, ignore them. They say they do not bear a grudge against Victor Lewis Smith: maybe they are telling the strict truth. However it should be born in mind that he has a history of insulting and hoaxing people, as well as fighting tough court cases, so it is worth considering if VLSmithBook may in some way be inspired or even funded by those who do bear grudges.
The other reason for my writing here is a more abstract one, related to what seems to be a weakness of Wikipedia. Some time ago I made a brief, factual and I believe uncontroversial contribution to this page. This is my other regret - not because of the content of what I added (putting right factual errors) but again because of the use VLSmithBook and others are able to make of all and everything which appears here. The weakness of Wikipedia is that distasteful and invasive material from VLSmithBook, although deleted now, is still held by Wikipedia and can be found if searched for, and indeed for all I know it may even continue to be thrown up by Google.
Let's say someone publishes untrue, libellous nonsense about a living person on Wikipedia. This is then duly and correctly deleted. But the VLSmithBook example shows how material which was once made publicly available on Wikipedia can stay online for ever. No wonder Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia, has gone on record as saying Wikipedia suffers from a lack of public perception of credibility, and the project gives too much space to "difficult people, trolls, and their enablers".
Victor Lewis Smith has no need of my defence: he is a tough media professional who has poured scorn on others for considerable financial gain throughout his career. Indeed there will be those who argue that if you give it out you must expect to take it. However it is worth being alert to this general structural weakness within Wikipedia - and to the unappetising activities of VLSmithBook in particular. Having got this sermon off my chest, I'll be staying away from this page from now on - and indeed from Wikipedia itself, as much as it is possible to ignore something so heavily promoted through Google.
May 2009
editHello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: Shared accounts are not permitted, as are usernames that promoted a group or organisation.. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?
I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.
You have several options freely available to you:
- If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
- If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
- You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.
Thank you. ascorbic (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition, accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing, and your username should reflect this.
Wikipedia is not a promotion website; this kind of activity is considered spam on Wikipedia, and forbidden by policies, and usernames that appear to be promotional also violate our username policy. Editing on Wikipedia is not intended to be used to promote anyone, or anything, and its use for that purpose will result in blocking of the account involved.
If you feel that there has been a mistake, please appeal this block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here}} below or contacting the administrator who has blocked you. Your reason should include a clear response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy. Please check that your new username has not already been taken here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
VLSmithBook (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Only one of us edits Wikipedia + see talk page comment from me
Decline reason:
The proposed username is just as problematic as the original one, because it suggests a deep-seated conflict of interest and non-neutral point of view about V.L. Smith. I would suggest that the human being behind this name should get his/her own account in her/his own name, and abandon this account as being deeply compromised. But be aware that if you are not using an account here to contribute to Wikipedia as a whole, but instead to further your own agenda, we can and will shut you down again. Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I've checked and you're right. Sorry. But actually only one of the two of us is internet-literate: no one except me has ever edited under "our" username, so I suggest that I put up a different user page explaining (a) despite appearances there is little risk of WP:COI and (b) that only one of us uses the account.
It seems a shame not to be allowed to continue: although we got a *lot* of primary source material, I am well aware that none of this fits with the Wikipedia (sensible) bias to secondary sources. But as the edit history shows, although some of the edits have been dsiputed, none of the secondary sources have been. Few other editors have as much to hand, so I would like to go on working, as and when I can find time on what has become a back-burner project.
Finally, as requested, if the current username is really out of order (I think it could be argued either way but obviously not with you, given your comments - just note that of course our book was never called anything like the username) I suggest username VLSmithResearcher.
I will now copy this to your talk pages.VLSmithBook (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just tried to follow through on the above but it seems I can't copy to your talk pages because of being blocked. So I will try sending email. VLSmithBook (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Madame Arcati
edit
I have nominated Madame Arcati, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madame Arcati. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)