User talk:Maximilianholland

Hello, Maximilianholland! 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 Getting mentored How to: create your first article 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 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 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 Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page

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]

hi Maunus. Thanks again for your help with this.
The

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]

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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

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]

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

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. 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

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]