User talk:HoboLow

Nomination of Matthew Wright (critic) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew Wright (critic) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Wright (critic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Seasick Steve. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Caution for repeated attempts to plug a new non-notable biography. Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Seasick Steve, you may be blocked from editing. Giant Snowman 20:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding independently researched information, which balances the highly inaccurate Seasick Steve page. Everything I add is independently verified, as you can see, if you read the verifications. Why not compare the English Seasick Steve page with the Norwegian page (where Steve has lived for many years), which you will find agrees with my additions: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasick_Steve?

It's not about doubting that the information is correct, but about blatant promotion (in this case for a new book and its author) not being allowed per Wikipedia's rules. Thomas.W ^talk 21:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it stands is about 75% rubbish. Steve's name, age, date, and much of his professional life are wrong. How is that in keeping with Wikipedia policy? Why does it matter who adds the information if it is accurate? Everything I have added has verification, as you can see for yourself. I know from experience that Steve's friends try to suppress my research (it happens in all media forms) because his career has been recently built on these inaccuracies. By suppressing accurate information, you are collaborating in a shameful fraud of the public. Which of the statements I have made is not verified from a third-party source?

Quite a bit - but a lot of the sources you use are also non-reliable. Giant Snowman 07:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, HoboLow. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 20:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information I have added is independently researched, and accurate, unlike what already exists on this page. It is fully verified. It is new research, which has been published, in a book, by a professional and reputable publisher. Surely one crucial purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect new research. I would appreciate it if you would spend some time acquainting yourself with the facts of Steve's life before you alter this post again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoboLow (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 June 2016‎

One crucial restriction of Wikipedia is that authors should not write directly about their own books. If you think that an article would benefit from a section about a book you have written, you should raise it on the article's talk page instead of adding that content yourself. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoboLow. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. Which other account am I supposed to be using? If there are others adding similar information to me (and if there are, I do not know who they are and certainly haven't co-ordinated this action) perhaps the explanation is: our information is, unlike 75% of this page, true and verifiable, and that we are interested in maintaining a true account of Seasick Steve's life. The current page is shamefully inaccurate, and while I am sorry to say this, I suspect the motives of some editors who are obstructing my inclusion of accurate and verified information.

Do you not imagine that someone of Seasick Steve's resources would have sued for libel by now, if everything I have written was not true? Do you think my publisher would have published information unless it had been rigorously checked by their lawyer? I have suggested, in print, that the majority of the existing Seasick Steve page is false? Why has Steve let me do that, if not, in fact, because it's all true, and he hasn't a leg to stand on? How disappointing that Wikipedia should have allowed itself to be manipulated in such a deceptive way.

Your re-addition of an external link on Matthew Wright (critic)[edit]

Hello. I have reverted your edit adding a link to John Blake Books to the article since links to online vendors violate our external link policies. Which is why it had previously been removed... Thomas.W ^talk 21:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Seasick Steve. Final warning for advertising and promotion for repeatedly adding a spamlink to a commercial website, a page on the site of an online vendor (John Blake Books) where the book about Seasick Steve can be ordered. Thomas.W ^talk 21:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only added the publisher's link to demonstrate the official & professional source of the book: it's not Amazon. Fine if you prefer not. I wish as much effort would go into correcting the dozens of blatant factual errors on the main Seasick Steve page. It doesn't deserve to be published as it is. I can provide a dozen verifiable sources of his real age, including official US state records.

You still don't seem to understand. This has absolutely nothing to do with the material as such, it's all about your blatant promotion of your book and yourself. If you want to promote your book get the media to write/talk about it, and if you want to promote yourself do it through Facebook, Linked-in or an own website, just don't do it here, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with articles about people, places, things and what-have-you that are notable by Wikipedia's very strict standards, not a repository for promotional autobiographies or a place for free advertising and promotion... Thomas.W ^talk 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seasick Steve edits[edit]

Hi HoboLow. I removed the section you added because (as I understand it from your talk of "everything I have written" and "my publisher") you have a conflict of interest in relation to the subject of Matthew Wright's book. I haven't been able to check the sources because I don't speak Norwegian and am not familiar with the standing of any particular Norwegian newspapers.

Per WP:COISELF, if you've written a book and think Wikipedia should mention it, you should raise that suggestion on the talk page instead of writing it in yourself. --McGeddon (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The press coverage of Seasick Steve: Ramblin' Man is mostly in Dutch and Flemish, not Norwegian, and if you use Google Translate you can get a perfectly serviceable translation immediately. The newspapers involved have an impeccable international reputation. I will raise the topic on the talk page. I look forward to the correction of wilfully inaccuracy being taken as seriously as my infringement of some technicalities. HoboLow (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your blatant promotion for your book and yourself here aren't just "infringing on technicalities", they're gross violations of basic principles and rules, and a blockable offense. Thomas.W ^talk 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]