User talk:Switpi84

I am a little amazed at the removal of the information about my relation to blogging history. Contrary to article? I wrote a phd on the topic, . which was referenced and is online. And provided a link to demonstrate that have provided blog content on the web continuously since Jan. 1995. I know of no other blog prior to this that was political in nature and not merely a diary. If something is truthful and factual, as well as documented with a dissertation and the actual product is still online, and happens to be self-promotional, well so be it. If you don't like the wording, change it. But to see claims that blogging was invented in 1997 (as claimed by Economist article) when I still run a web page with blog content from 1995 (and earlier via gopher sinc 1993 and email since 1989) is the honest truth of the matter. Because I work outside of the Internet community that does this for the technical thrill, and have used these tools for actual social good should not disqualify me. I can refer you to dozens of people that have followed this work for decades from both academia and the environmental world. I believe this content was removed because of someone against my environmental activism on libertarian grounds, and not because it was not historically accurate. Does anyone dispute that I have blogged since 1995 and they are still online and I got a phd for writing about it?Switpi84 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Self-published original research doesn't qualify. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC) (no libertarian)

And the fact that the site is still on the web at its original url doesn't qualify as evidence? Go to the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, it is there. 12 years on a PhD and an ill-researched Times article carries more weight. Is the only "evidence" applicable that someone else has written a news account? It is still on the web, it is in the way back machine, and it was published as a phd dissertation. If that isn't extraordinary evidence, I don't know what is.Switpi84 (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See policy on no original research Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.And from your venomous criticisms/rebuttals likely make you a Conflict of Interest Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. 16x9 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DR

The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN