User talk:Untileverycageisempty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speedy deletion of Earth Liberation Prisoner Support Network

A tag has been placed on Earth Liberation Prisoner Support Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. nancy 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, will you please use an edit summary when editing, thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. :-)

Just a note to say that, when you're adding links to "see also," check first to make sure they're not already linked in the animal rights template, or in the article. See also is for internal links that otherwise don't appear on the page, and occasionally for ones that you feel need to be emphasized (though if they're on the template, that's usually regarded as emphasis enough). We have three animal-rights related templates, by the way: Template:Animal testing, Template:Animal rights, Template:Alibend. The last two should have identical content -- the point of having two is that sometimes there's no room in an article for the upright template, and in those cases we use alibend instead, which goes at the bottom of the page.

Also, if you'd like to join the Animal Rights Wikiproject, you can sign up here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

Hello. The above article was deleted as it contained what appears to be copyright material from here. Please feel free to re-write the article in your own words, but do not copy and paste material from other websites, unless you own the copyright and intend to release it on a free license. Rockpocket 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Best

Seeing your recent edits, I'm concerned that you're pushing sales of the above author's books. I've removed the links to the book from all the articles in which you've added them. I'm sure you understand! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Hello, I have concerns with your username. Would you be inclined to change it? Best, Mercury 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-commercial image

[edit] Non-commercial image

[edit] Concerns

Hi, you have now received a number of messages about your edits on wikipedia. Yet at present you do not seem to have taken on board any of the comments (such as providing edit summaries etc). I am assuming good faith in your edits, however I really would strongly suggest that you read how to edit on wikipedia and in particular how to create articles etc before you continue as a number of your edits are only creating more work for other editors. If you need any assistance you only have to ask, but please tak on board the advice you are being given. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Unnecessary Fuss 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 for advertising or promotion. Since 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. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued refusals

You seem disinclined to talk to anyone about this, and as such I'm going to keep an eye on your edits,just to make sure you don't fall afoul of any of the guidelines - we don't want you getting blocked over something you didn't intend! If you could :

1. Stop inserting internal and external links into the 'See Also' and 'External Links' sections, it'd help a lot. The links aren't really relevant, and serve only to clutter the article.
2. Please stop pushing books that present a skewed view of the Animal liberation Front and other organisations. Please try and stick to books that provide an objective view of the organisations, preferably written by someone in government or the legal industry. That way we can avoid linking to books that are potentially inflammatory, or that condone quasi-terrorist and criminal activities.
3. Please, please, please re-think your username. You've been asked about this before, and we're extremely keen to get it changed to something less offensive. We'd rather you changed it voluntarily, than have to resort to a block.

Thankyou, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Apologies, I have tried to update some pages that clearly were missing links to relevant pages. Such as ALF to ALFSG and visa versa with the Press Office etc.
2. FYI: Keith Mann is a trained lawyer.
3. I find this offensive, the ideological meaning of username is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Untileverycageisempty (talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 November 2007

I understand the points you're trying to make, and the links you have added obviously show that you're trying to help the project. The links in the 'See Also' section, however, are generally only needed if the link itself is not mentioned in the article, and if the subject has a direct link to the 'see also' links - not just an association with them. Secondly, Keith Mann may be a trained lawyer, but he is hardly a neutral source! How about an objective analysis written by someone who isn't pro animal rights, or pro-vivisection? Finally, although your username does show your views on the subject, it's not quite... pleasant. Several other Wikipedia editors work for Huntingdon Life Sciences, and I myself have had violent run-ins with both sides in the past as part of my daily work. If we can talk about your username here, and try to come to a conclusion that suits the both of us, then hopefully we won't need to involve anyone else! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chase me, I agree that this user needs guidance; thank you for keeping an eye on things. However, I feel I have to take issue with one point you made, namely that we shouldn't link to books written by animal rights activists. Of course we must do that, in order to present their POV. Governments, scientists, activists for and against all have POV on this issue. I doubt there are any neutral sources. So what we do is use sources in accordance with V, NOR, and NPOV -- bearing in mind undue weight, appropriateness, and so on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One of each, aye. I was just concerned about the additions of three or four of one PoV to each article! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Name

I'm uninvolved here, but can I just say that I don't see what is so wrong with this person's user name, it doesn't mention any company names and it doesn't appear threatening or violent, as long as he/she edits neutrally, that is what matters isn't it? Sue Wallace 04:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know where this should go, but have added it here. However it does seem, from the edits made, as though this user is also this user - Doingwhatwikitellsme. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-commercial image

[edit] A few hints

Hi, it seems you've gained a fair few negative comments in your first few days on wikipedia. I for one appreciates some of your contributions as there are many holes in wikipedias coverage of the history of direct action. It takes some time to get round the way wikipedia works.

Things WP likes

citations, that is information backed up sources from books, newpapers, magazines

the concept of open source lies at the heart of WP

WP:NPOV a neutral point of view.

Things WP does not like

Blatent plugs and advertising

Copyright violation

One sided advocacy.

So working with wikipedia requires a very different outlook to a campaining groups. Personally I think WP is a great means for documenting the history of the animal rights and enviromental actions and doing this is a very worthwhile task.

Take your addition of the Steve Best book. Currently the additions look like advertising. However if the book can be used as material to help document part of the history then it could server as a good reference. In particular if the book describes the work of Earth Liberation Prisoner Support Network then a appropriate citation could help establish the notability of that topic. Things need to be very specific: what did Best say about ELPSN?

I hope you take the above on board, ignore it and your stay could be short lived, take heed and you could make some valuable contributions. --Salix alba (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Salix. I think your sage advice would be more likely to be noted at User talk:Doingwhatwikitellsme Rockpocket 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked this and your other account for two reasons. First, you are using multiple accounts in a way that is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community, and second, your editing itself is highly problematic. Wikipedia must adhere to the neutral point of view, a non-negotiable policy. You are engaging in advocacy, which is not acceptable under that policy. Your sources, when you cite them, are polemical, and your edits and comments indicate that you have very strong feelings on the subject of animal rights, and are keen to write in glowing terms about some of those involved. So much so that the style and content of your edits suggests a conflict of interest. I am taking this to the adminsitrators' noticeboard for discussion. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions

I'm cross-posting this to User talk:Doingwhatwikitellsme. Since you clearly need to choose only one account to edit from, please respond at whichever account that is.

You certainly seem passionate about your editing, yet ran into some trouble quite quickly. Staying active for 22 hours indicates a high degree of passion, but also means that you had to have been getting tired by the end. Hopefully you have gotten some sleep and have thought about your experience.

Much of what I'm going to say is based on, and largely a quotation of, something written by William Pietri to another passionate editor who had been blocked, adjusted somewhat to reflect your experience here, passion and interest.

Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about them the way that a good zoo feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we build habitats for them that permit a good living and safe inspection by visitors, with all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the zoo is seen as an urgent problem.

Your conduct went beyond what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia. But you are new, and still learning, and appropriately directed passion and energy could be very helpful. What you need to learn is how to direct your passion and energy, and what bounds to keep yourself within. For example, a passionate butterfly lover who wanted to make sure we had the best possible article on every lepidopteran species could help improve that coverage a great deal - we don't have coverage of the complete taxonomy - but only if they learn to write content that is acceptable on Wikipedia. If they wanted to write about how butterflies are the most important creatures in the world and we should all replant our lawns and gardens to improve the butterfly habitat then we would bid them a fond adieu.

So, why are you here? Are you here to help create a body of free knowledge in the form of an encyclopedia, or are you here as an advocate for a point of view? We have much more use for editors passionate about expanding knowledge than for editors advocating changes in society. If you are here to help create free knowledge, we may be able to work with you. If you are here to advocate for a change in society, then we probably need to release you, unharmed, into the wilds - and shut the door firmly against your return. Right now, this is an open question among the site administrators.

If you are here to create knowledge, are there non-contentious topic areas on which you could work? Wild plants or animals found in your garden? The history of former towns in your country of residence? Historic sites? The possibilities are endless; those examples are ones I have worked on myself in the last fortnight based on things I've seen or done. If you come back, consider first working on some articles where you have knowledge but aren't so passionate. (You may find that hard, but consider that Wikipedia has made it for years without the perfect article on any particular topic; another few weeks won't hurt much in the grand scheme of things, and you'll do better work here with a bit more experience.)

Also consider reading through the Wikipedia policies to get an appreciation for what we're up to. A good place to start is Wikipedia:Five pillars. You'll come to see that although these may feel constraining, they will work in your favor over the long haul: when people with opposing views to yours turn up, we will be equally dilligent in making sure that they don't delete inconvenient facts or links to your views.

When you do start back on this article, consider starting small. Put in a single sentence that you feel is fair, accurate, and neutrally stated. Give it a few days to see how people react, and then add another couple. And a couple of days later, see how you like your work. Does it really do what you thought it did? Is it improving knowledge or advocating for change? As a normal writer, strong views are a great help. But as a Wikipedia editor, they impose a special burden: because you are obligated to be fair to all sides, you must be especially careful that your views don't distort the article.

You got your fingers burned in your first visit here. Do you want to come back? Only you can answer that question. Do you want to create an encyclopedia, or change the world? That we should talk about. Please respond if you do wish to return to editing. Explain what you thought you were doing, and what you will be doing if we open the door to resumed editing. GRBerry 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)