User talk:Antiselfpromotion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone said my username may be inflammatory. Should I change it? I do not think it is wrong to be anti self-promotion on Wikipedia. I try to be even more careful and thorough than the average editor in nominating articles for deletion.Antiselfpromotion (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately Wikipedia turned into a little bit of a witch-hunt for the "small folks" who haven't really reached the moon, but still enjoy some sort of accomplishment worth sharing (full disclosure, There's an article i'm defending annotated as AfD, not by Antiselfpromotion though). Perhaps there should be some other site then for issues of this nature? it probably already exists, but the point is, the strength behind wikipedia is on holding the long tail of documented knowledge. By screening so consummately you help destroy the halo effect behind this great site and really; if you have to limit the amount of data you enter TO wikipedia, then; what's the point? (btw, here's a quick list of sites which may, may not elucidate this point further http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowritescomments http://www.therssweblog.com/?guid=20060410082920 or ... sigh http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+sucks ).

Its perfectly understandable for Wikipedia to strive for data purity and clarity, however. Ive just never understood why wikipedia doesn't have a category to tag "self aggrandizing" entries. Deletion is so. final.

Anyways, the reason I began writing here was, other than to try the futile exercise of argument on an issue long lost to wikipedians, I read your user statement and found a bit that caught my attention. It reads: "self-aggrandizement, marketing, fraud and other kinds of dishonesty". Watch out: for however annoying Marketing and Self Promotion (i.e., marketing) are, they aren't forms of "Dishonesty".

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.150.172.234 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I understand what you are saying and it is something about which I will think more. A tag that said THIS PAGE LOOKS LIKE IT PROMOTES ITS SUBJECT OR IS WRITTEN FROM A SELF-AGGRANDIZING PERSPECTIVE would remove much of my concern but run against wikipedia's policy of searching for a neutral point of view for all pages. I do not know what the best overall approach is but I am trying to help wikipedia be what current policies and guidelines strive for. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)