User talk:Terrillja

Granite

The subject of the Granite page is not 'Radiation', the subject is GRANITE, which is a relevant construction material worldwide. There is an attempt being made to make this page a discussion forum for the radiation issue, which is still an undecided debate underway (solely) in the USA, and is not too relevant to the overall subject, which is Granite, its properties (in short), its occurances, its uses et.al. Maybe the debaters can make a seperate page on the "Radiation in Granite" and carry on the one sided attack thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs)

Well, since the radioactivity of granite is one of its properties, I don't see any reason why it is out of line to discuss it. The post was on the talkpage, whose purpose is to discuss additions/changes to the article, and they were presenting their ideas for how radiation should be mentioned, with links. I don't see the post and overly soapboxing, the person was simply providing some info and what they felt about the product. There is no rule against expressing your opinion as long as it adheres to WP:TALK, and in my opinion, this comment was valid. If you would like to express your views on the subject, then do so there, if you continue to delete other people's comments, you will be blocked for your disruption.

And please remember to sign your posts.--Terrillja _talk 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, I erroneously thought that I was reading the comment on the main Granite page, my error, apologies. An unintentional oversight. Of course, a talk page is meant to discuss and all content on that page should have been respected. WIth respect to the main Granite page, actually there had earlier been many previous attempts by people to put in a one sided view, deleting the other side, and as an oversight I just read the 'diff' section and made the error of judgement. Take care.Kulveer (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was just browsing the page for a science project, and some guy just wrote a bunch of stuff on there. You're welcome. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you left your computer/ account unsecured and someone else posted as you?--Terrillja _talk 17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I just saw the words typed up above the article "Tyler Doyle is a fat fag!". So I went to the edit to delete it, but it was already gone. When I went back to the page, the text wasn't there anymore. I really don't know what happened. I'm mostly new here. The only thing I've done so far is this, and post questions on the reference desk. I was just afraid I'd broke the website, or something. Y'know, corrupted it. I was having a heart attack, metaphorically speaking. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I didn't see any history of vandalism from you, so I figured something funky was up. if you have any questions about how to do anything here, feel free to ask!--Terrillja _talk 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't really been a member all that long, so I probably shouldn't have any vandalism history! Come to think of it, I didn't even know about vandalism history...well, anyway, thanks for offering your help! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding you rolling back my edit...

No problem, I sometimes hit the wrong button too. On my second day as an admin I accidentally blocked another admin instead of the vandal he was warning. OOPS! Don't worry about it. Chillum 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The downside of trying to browse WP on an iPod. My fingers are just a bit too big, and the browser tends to stutter. Sorry about that!--Terrillja _talk 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Watson

The edit is about who founded Greenpeace, and Greenpeace is the principal authority on that issue, I would think. This makes the distinction between primary and secondary sources moot, in this case. Who knows more about its founding than the group that was founded? Probably not a person who was expelled from the group, or anyone who interviewed him. Besides, I think there are probably other sources that dispute how involved Watson was in the actual formation of Greenpeace. Being around at the time is not quite the same as being a principal actor in the act. Thanks for your discussion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that they have had a fairly rough relationship, trusting what either one says exclusively would be pushing OR. One could argue that Watson has a better idea of what happened than a PR person for greenpeace these days since he was there in the start. If they had a good relationship, I might believe that they (GP) would be a good source to go to, but I certainly would not put it past them trying to distance themselves from Watson. As such, secondary sources are more appropriate, since they are not based on whims of an organization, and have to put their reputation behind their reporting. Greenpeace could just change their mind tomorrow, no harm to them. A news organization does not have the same ability to do so. Which is why we have rules for this kind of thing.

Organizations go back and try and change history all the time. Look at the US government... Did we say they definitely had WMD? We said they might have some. Wait, no, we never said anything about that.

This is why you use secondary sources. They cannot change their mind on a whim, and any changes must be recorded in history.--Terrillja _talk 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, you are really stretching reason this time. Are you really just an apologist for Paul Watson? Sure sounds like it sometimes. The Sea Shepherd article is just a big mess and weaseling about things like this are not going to change that. This is just plain silly. You want to put it out for RfC and see what kinds of comments you get? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what does the SSCS article have to do with anything? RfC? Waste more time? I'll pass. Well I'll go back to your original argument. WP:SPS Greenpeace is a SPS (obviously). On a positive note, I would like to express how I really appreciate the fact that you have shorted your replies, if a reply is too long I tend to lose focus partway through, ADD and such...--Terrillja _talk 20:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to try that argument about the Greenpeace ref, you're going to have to strip out about 1/3 of the refs and related text in the Sea Shepherd article, because they are also WP:SPS. At least that will make the article a lot shorter. :) Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had read what I wrote before, I said that the primary souce info should be there, but it should be based on secondary sources. There is all sorts of info that the mainstream press does not have time/money/manpower to report, where primary sources can me used to supplement the secondary sources. Side note: not sure if you saw that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer stopped paper distribution last week and is cutting down on web writers too. Sad time for print media. I know that you had cited them before and might be interested.--Terrillja _talk 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, hard for newspapers everywhere to compete with net news...at least until the next major, prolonged blackout. Rocky Mountain News in Denver last month, where next? I don't see any problem with reporting both sides of the Greenpeace issue, without taking sides, if that's what you want to do. But I don't see any basis for siding with Watson's version over anyone elses. How about neutrality? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What in heaven's name is the problem here this time?! – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 03:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, do you go with greenpeace's account of his involvement in their organization when they are known to be distancing themselves form him, or do you go with a secondary source which has nothing to gain or lose. I'm going to try and get a version that supports both.--Terrillja _talk 03:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Greenpeace would be considered an extremely biased source of information concerning this topic. Better to go with secondary sources on this one. If the Greenpeace source is used, I highly suggest finding a secondary source to back it up. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 06:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Terrillja's proposal, but if you can't find what you want, its actually easier just to report both sides as being in disagreement and leave it at that. Like: "Side one says abc, but side two says xyz." WP:NPOV actually says how to do this. Cheers! Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Terrillja. Thanks a lot for your welcome. I´m a medium-advanced user in the spanish Wikipedia, and sometimes I try to help in this Wiki. My english level is mediocre, so I´ll limited me to make minor changes (interwikis, categories, references...). Bye and thanks again ;) --Montgomery (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC) P.S: I´m a newpage patroller too, happy coincidence.

That explains a lot. Most new users don't jump in and change categories off the bat. I've looked around on es.wiki a little bit, but my spanish is not good enough to do much. Having said that, I have been using hr.wikipedia to help me learn Croatian. Good to have an endless supply of reading material.--Terrillja _talk 20:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1

Hi, could you please comment on your edits to File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/M777, as there is a question about the copright? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)