User talk:81.45.225.50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and Filipino-related articles. Some of your contributions have been reverted because they may contain what are known here as "weasel words" - words the imply a point of view, which would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for more information. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Account

Hi,

It looks like you're genuinely interested in contributing on Wikipedia. Have you considered creating an account? This way, people can easily identify you and you can interact with others. Collaboration is fun! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Response

Thanks very much. I am interested in contributing but am not very familiar with the Wikipedia language codes. For now I will not create an account, but perhaps at a later date. Regards.

[edit] Navarre

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Navarre. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Húsönd 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Navy and the Battle of Cartagena

Your recent edit here [1] has been reverted for the fourth time. This section of the Royal Navy's history is relatively minor. If you want to make an edit could you suggest it on the talk page and try and reach consensus. I am sure that some of the points can be worked into the History of the Royal Navy article in the future but only if consensus is reached,see WP:CON for more details The main Royal Navy article is meant to be a summary of the history. Your edits are very specific. As it stands your edits are being reverted. I hope that you will comment on the talk page. Thankyou Woodym555 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, i have reverted this addition. Much of it can be ssen to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for more information. The information on this defeat should be added, i agree, but not on this page. As discussed above the Royal Navy history section is a summary of the main page History of the Royal Navy. Your edits can be merged into this separate page but only after consensus is reached. By ignoring warnings and not discussing these edits on the appropriate talk page, your edits could be construed as vandalism. I strongly urge you to reach a resolution on the Royal Navy talk page or the History of the Royal Navy talk page. I do hope that you will try and work with existing editors in order to improve this article. Woodym555 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Wikipedia

Hi, I am not very familiar with Wikipedia and I thought my contributions were not being saved correctly, that is why I saved them several times.

Regarding the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, I will talk about it in the "Discussion" section as you suggested, but for now can I say that in my opinion the largest naval action in Britain's history should appear in this main article, at least briefly, even if it was a defeat.

Your unfamiliarity is of course perfectly acceptable. I would suggest that you provide sources for the battle on its own page, at the moment there are none. Also the page is in breach of WP:NPOV, just as the British used propaganda to remove all trace of the battle, this article is at the moment Spanish propaganda. The article should be written from both sides, it needs to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. At the moment phrases such as "had little to show for their efforts", "When news of the embarrassing outcome of the battle" and "This censorship was so systematic and successful that the" all put across the Spanish point of view.
I would also like to ask how are the British numbers calculated? It seems strange that if there are no authoritative British sources then how can the number of men be accurate. And if the only Reliable sources are Colombian and Spanish then they are surely going to be biased by their very nature. I welcome your acceptance of the discussion proposal and hope to see your point of view there in the future. Woodym555 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments Woody. I am glad that there are such clear and objective criteria in dealing with Wikipedia articles. Regarding the Battle of Cartagena, I did not create the article but wrote a paragraph in the British Navy article (which has been deleted, as you explained) which was then used to create the main article. Indeed, the neutrality of some of the phrases you mentioned are doubtful. But most of them I did not write. For example, I did not write: "had little to show for their efforts". This must have been somebody's translation from the original Spanish. Regarding the "news of the embarrassing outcome", I only wrote the "news of the outcome", and somebody else must have added "embarassing". Finally, I did write "This censorhips was so systematic and successul". But how else can this be said in a more neutral way? Perhaps "this strong censorship"?

I will post my other comments in the Discussion section, but let me just finish here by saying that just because Colombian and Spanish texts are the only reliable sources of information, does not mean they are biased. As far as I know, there is no dispute between historians about what happened in Cartagena in 1741. It is simply that British texts often avoid mentioning this event and simply skip it (just like they sometime skip the Drake-Norris Expedition or "English Armada" of 1589). But I will certainly look into this to find out more. Thank you.