User talk:Maximilianholland

Hello, Maximilianholland! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Solar Impulse Project has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFru5Cijx0. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Solar Impulse do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X_vluYuRZo. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Your recent edits at Evolutionary psychology suggest that you have expert knowledge about the topic of kinship and how it has been handled in Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology and Anthropology respectively. That is great and your contributions are very welcome. However we generally discourage that experts cite their own work, especially unpublished work such as dissertations or theses or conference papers, since such work is not generally peerreviewed or verifiable. Generally it is better not to cite oneself in wikipedia as it may be seen as selfadvertisement and it may create conflicts of interest. We also do not allow users to write autobiographies. The relevant rules and guidelines for editing can be seen here:What wikipedia is an isn't, rules about autobiographies, rules about which sources are considered reliable, rules about conflicts of interest. Please continue to contribute, as we have a strong need for editors who know about Evolutionary Psychology, Anthropology and kinship.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi Maunus[edit]

Thanks for your advice, which is appreciated since I have not read every guideline about what goes or what doesn't go in wikis. Leadwind placed my name in the within the text of the other wiki articles and created the biography page, suggesting that more information about my research would be useful. No-one apart from me has my biographical information, so that's why I felt compelled to fill it in (took about 4 hours ;-). Given that Leadwind (who seems to also be an experienced Wiki person) suggested that some information (even if written by the person in question) is better than no information (in the absence of others being aware of this information), I felt this was the right thing to do. I agree that it 'would be better' if someone else could contribute this information, but that is not possible in this situation (unless of course you would like to read the thesis and then summarize it;-)). I am not really interested in self-promotion (notice I did not put my name in the text of the EP article, or any of the others I updated, Leadwind did), but I am currently very interested in human intellectual progress, much of which involves freeing ourselves of dogma; I think that key theoretical mistakes should be corrected, and go on the record of the discipline's history - I hope you agree that this is important. I would be more than happy for this revision to be spread anonymously, or minimizing my personal 'promotion' in any way. Suggestions?
I think its fair to say I have expert knowledge on this, having spent 5 years and a PhD on it. :-) PhD theses in the UK are examined and peer-reviewed by independent well-established experts (FYI the other reviewer was Elliott Sober), and LSE is considered a reliable institution (it's where W.D.Hamilton did his original work). The thesis is not commercially published, but copies are available through any pretty much any university library in the world, and a digital copy is available on-line. In the light of this further information, is there any overriding reason why this summary of the theoretical critique cannot be re-instated? For example, would you prefer it if the page did not have my name 'on it' but instead just the title of the theoretical revision? Please advise. Appreciate your help so far. Maximilianholland (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC) thanks also for protecting some of my edits in the EP and EP controversy articles.Maximilianholland (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

follow up having checked guidelines[edit]

hi Maunus. Thanks again for your help with this.
The rules about which sources are considered reliable confirm that approved PhD theses which are available through university library systems DO count as reliable, verifiable and published sources.
The rules about conflicts of interest state that: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies."
The rules about autobiographies state that "If Wikipedia already has an article about you... In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself." (As I mentioned, Leadwind - who I don't know personally - created the page. Initially I was moved to delete it, but then I thought that it might be a good place to outline the theoretical revision - most people will not bother to read the 277 page thesis!) On other aspects of the autobiography rules:
* I don't feel the content I wrote is particularly biased, rather I attempted to keep it basic and factual, focussed on the academic content (let me know if you disagree).
* The content is verifiable, including the quote from the thesis examiners report which can be sourced via the university system.
* The content does not contain original research (referring back to the rules about which sources are considered reliable).
Is this a fair summary of the position? Please let me know if there is something I have overlooked. As mentioned above, perhaps a good compromise would be to create a page which summarizes the contribution using the short title of the thesis, whilst minimizing content about the author per se. Would you approve of that? Many thanks.Maximilianholland (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
okay, so perhaps I should not have uncritically followed leadwind's suggestion (I've been reading the EP talk page). I apologise for that. Nevertheless, I still think a page outlining the theoretical critique would be valid.Maximilianholland (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that i didn't notice leadwind's involvement. I thought you introduced your name and reference in the text yourself. I think it is much less of a problem when it has happened in this way. In anycase, being a new user it isn't a large problem - and you are definitely excused for not being thoroughly acquainted with rules and guidelines. I think it would be a shame if wikipedia were not to draw the obvious benefit of having an expert on this issue. I will definitely help you as much as I can with any problems that i encounter in your edits and I encourage you to ask me on my talkpage. I will recreate the article about you seeing that you didn't create it yourself (I apologize for not having checked that), but I think that it is likely to be deleted if it is not expanded with clear signs of "notability" (read WP:ACADEMIC to see what criteria establishes scholars as notable enought to merit an article) and incorporates sources that are about you as a person rather than by you. Best regards and happy editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind help. I am very glad we cleared this up. Thanks for your concession to re-create the article. I am an assistant professor in a university (in Hong Kong), and although my thesis is most likely 'notable' and 'of note' it is not at the stage of being widely 'noted' quite yet! So I am not 'distinguished' in any of the senses in the WP:ACADEMIC article. This being the case, I will edit it to minimize the 'me' and simply summarize the relevant intellectual/theoretical content. If someone else later reasons that it should be deleted, I'll cross that bridge when it arises. Many thanks again Maximilianholland (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. I work with kinship too, although from a linguistic anthropology angle.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

evolutionary psychology[edit]

If you feel frustrated at all, e-mail me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you happen to know my friend Joe Bosco at CUHK? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi SL - yes I know Joe quite well. He's been in the anthropology dept. here for a long time. where do you know him from?Maximilianholland (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Social bonding and nurture kinship for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social bonding and nurture kinship 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/Social bonding and nurture kinship 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. France3470 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add a personal comment to this. Although, I feel this article has been written with the very best intentions and with a clear understanding of the issues of conflict of interest, I personally have concerns with the tone and approach of the writing. Wikipedia has a strong policy of no original research and no synthesis and the article does not feel that it conforms to these requirements in its present state. I hope this is not too discouraging, your contribution are much appreciated, particularly as you are clearly an expert on topics which Wikipedia has a lack of coverage in. Please feel free to respond to comments about the article and the deletion nomination on its AFD page. Thank you, France3470 (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maximilian Holland for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maximilian Holland 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/Social bonding and nurture kinship 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Please refrain from writing autobiographical articles, as you did at Maximilian Holland. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged; if you create such an article, it may be deleted. All edits to articles must conform to our policies on no original research, neutral point of view, and avoid conflicts of interest. Please remember that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a personal webspace provider. If your achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maximilianholland. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Social bonding and nurture kinship, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erpert. The WP:AUTO is understood - but please do take the time to notice that this was not intentional, as has been discussed in some length above. I am happy for the page to be deleted.Maximilianholland (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]