User talk:71.54.193.153

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 71.54.193.153). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.--I already forgot 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sea Shepherd. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. =Axlq 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Sea Shepherd, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. =Axlq 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for help?

The talk pages of anonymouns IP addresses shouldn't be blanked. I have restored the previous edits so that other editors and administrators may see a record of past activity. You posted {{Helpme}} on this page when you blanked it, but you didn't ask a question. I am happy to help. What is your question? Please respond below. =Axlq 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is another try.....Sorry, bear with me. I'm now guessing that I edit the page where you say something, placing my new text below yours, then hit save. Not sure yet how I see your reply but guessing I'll need to refresh my page or something.......Need something like yahoo IM for this....LOL
Bruce

Ah, got it. You asked the question on my talk page, regarding the Sea Shepherd article. You asked:

I am trying to figure this out....very first time needing some guidance. I'm trying to input factual information on Sea Shepherd to balance the article a bit more as well as to update it as some of the end is a year old.
So am I getting through to someone?

Certainly. I have been reverting your edits because they do not display a neutral point of view (NPOV). That is one of the five non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia. Feel free to update anything you want in the article, but if you insert edits accusing the article's subject of "criminal" behavior, that implies Wikipedia endorses the accusation. What you should do instead is quote a reliable source accusing Sea Shepherd of criminal behavior -- then you're simply reporting an opinion, not stating the opinion as Wikipedia's.

By the way, since you are editing anonymously, I have no idea if the Sea Shepherd edits I referred to are yours personally or someone else who might be sharing your IP address. I highly recommend creating a free account.

If you reply, you can indent your reply by starting the line with a colon. I inserted colons in front of your comments above to demonstrate. =Axlq 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is a difficult system to communicate but here goes...LOL The information I was inputing is documented or I would not put it in. So if I want to state that "joe blow was convicted of XXXX and sentenced to ## months in jail" and I have the references and documentation (and do references need to be online or are other references allowabe) do I put a reference there in the statement, do I have to say "so and so says "joe blow....."" or what.

Your question about references is answered in more detail than you want at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Basically any kind of verifiable reference will work. It doesn't have to be online. It can be a book or a newspaper article. As long as someone else is capable of checking it, it's fine. If you have a specific example, I can show you how to do it. You can add a link or put it in a footnote, but how to make footnotes aren't obvious to new editors. =Axlq 06:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please bear with me, I am one that appreciates factual information with creditable references when I'm researching and just happened to be on this Sea Shepherd thing for some other research and it's way lop sided in my opinion with very little references other than the organizations own pages....... that usually does end up a little lop sided. Doesn't matter what the issue is.

Excellent, and I agree, using the Sea Shepherd web site as a primary source makes sense for a lot of things (like general facts about the organization) but may result in a lopsided article if outside sources aren't used. =Axlq 06:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

The problem so far has been the way you're editing, and I understand that you're probably new at this. Once again I highly recommend you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) to understand why your edits to Sea Shepherd have been reverted, as well as other edits made from your IP address to articles like Who killed the electric car? and Zero emission. Understanding the NPOV article will go a long way to helping you craft your edits in an acceptable way.

Let me go over your edits to Sea Shepherd to show you what I mean:

  • In this edit you added the sentence One must wonder why these self confessed acts of terrorism have not been prosecuted. This is an editorial comment. Editorial comments don't belong in Wikipedia articles, especially if it puts Wikipedia in a position of accusing someone of terrorism. (It's also partly false; they have been prosecuted, but the prosecutions often failed.)
  • In this edit you wrote ...one of Sea Shepherd's best-known and most controversial actions, the criminal sinking of two ships.... replacing the word "scuttling" with "criminal sinking". The original word "scuttling" was neutral and factual. By inserting the word "criminal" you introduced an editorial point of view. Had you instead quoted someone saying "criminal sinking" then it would have been factual, not promoting a point of view but simply reporting what someone said.
  • In the same edit you removed the phrase "usually with little success" in the sentence about society members being tried for commission of crimes. That deletion was actually okay, although leaving it in would have still been a true statement.
  • In this edit you removed a valid, sourced quotation and substituted sensationalist opinion words like "eco-terrorist" and "dangerous". These are someone's opinions, not Wikipedia's. Again, rephrasing things in such a way that you quote a government official or notable environmental activist calling them eco-terrorists, would have been factual.

Anyway, I hope that helps. Apologies if my use of the word "you" in my above comments don't apply to your edits; again, I don't know how many people share your IP address. =Axlq 06:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)