PhileasFoggthe4th

PhileasFoggthe4th, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PhileasFoggthe4th! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Memetics. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TJRC. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mapp v. Ohio have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. In addition to the Mapp article, you are spamming this across multiple article. Please stop. TJRC (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: I see you have indiscriminately copy-pasted this link into almost fifty articles at the rate of three or four per minute, obviously without regard to whether it is appropriate. A review of your edit history shows that substantially all of your contributions over the last five years have been to promote this author. Please stop.

In addition, if you are this author, please be aware of Wikipedia's policies on Conflict of Interest and start abiding by them. TJRC (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello TJRC,

Thank you for reaching out and bringing this to my attention. I apologize if my recent contributions gave the impression of being promotional or against Wikipedia's policies. I assure you that it was not my intention.

I understand the importance of maintaining objectivity, using independent sources, and presenting information from a neutral perspective on Wikipedia. I appreciate your guidance and will make sure to adhere to these principles in my future contributions.

Regarding the article in question and its relevance to the Supreme Court case, I believe it is a worthwhile and peer-reviewed source that can contribute valuable insights to the topic. I will take your feedback into consideration and approach it from a neutral standpoint, providing objective information.

I genuinely apologize for any inconvenience or disruption my previous actions may have caused. I assure you that I will review and reflect upon my editing history, and make the necessary adjustments to comply with Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you for your understanding and guidance.

What should be the next steps? PhileasFoggthe4th (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any relationship with the author who you are promoting that you'd like to disclose? TJRC (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello TJRC,

Apologies for missing this. I was not aware of the specific guidelines regarding conflicts of interest (COI) at the time, and I apologize for any inadvertent violation of those guidelines. I now understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and maintaining transparency regarding affiliations.

To clarify, I am the author of the articles I added, but I did not intend to make such a large number of changes all at once. My intention was to propose sandbox changes that I could later revisit and discuss with other editors to ensure their appropriateness and alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Again, I apologize for any confusion or impression of impropriety. My intent was to contribute to the Wikipedia articles in a manner that provides relevant and valuable information, while maintaining neutrality and reliability.

In light of the situation, I am willing to work collaboratively with the Wikipedia community, including yourself, to address any concerns and ensure that my contributions align with Wikipedia's policies. I appreciate your guidance and would welcome any suggestions or recommendations you may have moving forward.

I am committed to learning from this experience and making constructive contributions to the Wikipedia community. PhileasFoggthe4th (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I note that you've made just under 100 edits to articles; and of these, about 85 of them have been directed to adding material promoting this non-notable author. You re-added it to the Atwater' article after it was removed and you were warned, and although the article you added does indeed deal with Atwater, there is nothing to suggest that that article has any particular recognition in the academic or legal community that suggests it should be particularly singled out as a "Further reading" entry. Combined with your record of indiscriminately adding references to this author over literally scores of articles without regard for its applicability, this strongly suggests that your motivation is promotion, rather than any good-faith attempt to improve the Wikipedia articles to which you have been adding it. TJRC (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello TJRC,

Thank you for your response. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous edits. I understand that the inclusion of articles promoting a non-notable author without proper consideration for their relevance and applicability may have given the impression of promotion rather than genuine improvement of Wikipedia articles.

I apologize for any misinterpretation of my intentions. My main interest was to potentially make sandbox edits of those articles, while reading the Wikipedia guidelines, and adding relevant material with the aim of improving the quality and accuracy of the content. I now realize that my approach may not have aligned with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.

Regarding the Atwater article, I genuinely believe that the added article provides valuable insights and independent analysis on the case, contributing to a better understanding of its relevance and significance. However, I understand that the notability of the author alone may not be the sole criteria for including it as a "Further reading" entry. I will respect your judgment and adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on the matter.

I apologize for any disruption caused by my previous actions. I assure you that going forward, I will be more cautious and considerate in my edits, ensuring that they align with Wikipedia's policies, maintain neutrality, and focus on improving the articles in a constructive manner.

Thank you for your patience and guidance.

What do you think should be the next steps for resuscitating my account? PhileasFoggthe4th (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, your account is unchanged, and does not need to be unblocked. Going forward, please limit yourself to making constructive edits. Given your track record, please be aware that any edits promoting yourself will be assumed to be nonconstructive, motivated by your desire for self-promotion than by any genuine desire to improve Wikipedia.

If you continue making promotional edits, you may indeed be blocked. If so, you will be notified, and provided with guidelines on what you should do to have yourself unblocked. TJRC (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and avoiding self-promotion.

In light of that, I would like to know the proper procedure for suggesting an article I have written as a potential addition to the "Further reading" section of relevant Wikipedia pages. I believe my article provides valuable insights and could be a useful resource for readers interested in exploring the topic further. However, I want to ensure that I approach this request in a constructive and appropriate manner.

Could you please advise me on how I can make such a request effectively and within the guidelines of Wikipedia? I want to contribute positively and respect the community's standards. PhileasFoggthe4th (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your post here suggests that you have not read the Conflict of Interest guidelines posted above. At the minimum, you need to read and follow that; it contains helpful descriptions of procedures to follow.

I have to say, you are fighting an uphill battle to put into a Further Reading section an article in a student-run (apparently not peer-reviewed as you have asserted in your edit summaries) journal, where the journal in question is not one of the leading ones in the field, and is infrequently published, where the author is not a recognized authority, and where the article is not highly cited to suggest its importance; all primarily based on the author's self-assessment of his own importance and value of his own writings; particularly in light of your well-established predilection for self-promotion. I doubt you would get a consensus from any other experienced editor that it would be a welcome addition. TJRC (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Atwater v. City of Lago Vista. TJRC (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)