User talk:Seedcollector

Welcome!

Hello, Seedcollector, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • 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 Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Doomsday Preppers has been reverted.
Your edit here to Doomsday Preppers was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/user/PeterPrepper) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Copied from: Talk:Doomsday Preppers

Whoa. First, thank you for recognizing the links were excessive, and removing them per WP:EL. Second, I didn't mean to WP:BITE you; after all, as far as number of edits is concerned, I'm fairly new here too. I felt I had to come on strong because conflicts-of-intrest can be a big problem, and you admitted to a potential conflict of interest. Like I said, most of what you've done was improvement; even reverting my edits could have been argued to be improvement (which is why I offered a chance for explanation). Unfortunately, there is still a problem with that POV paragraph. Opinions, no matter how valid, do not belong in Wikipedia articles (unless they are the opinions of a reliable source, with citations). Also, signed comments are for the talk page, not articles (and signatures are generated automatically when you type four "~" (tildes)). So, unless you can edit it to comply with (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc.) it will still have to go. (there are plenty of places to put your opinions and get back at the show, but Wikipedia is not one of them). And I wasn't trying to 'destroy your honest work', I was simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (which is, after all, the main reason we should all have for being here). Evidence of that is that I did not simply revert your reverts (and so on), or report you to the conflict of interest notice board, but instead opened a discussion (the preferred method of averting conflicts). The fact that 'anyone can edit' can be a harsh reality of this project, and one I hope you can work with.

In short, I hope I didn't scare you off; I think you have great potential for future editing. While you could certainly continue editing this article, I would recommend you take a break from this article, skim a few of the major policy pages (linked above and on your own talk page), and try you hand at some other articles (those that you are knowledgable about, but have less of a vested interest in; you seem to have some expertise in computers and agriculture). This article (and all your previous edits/versions; see the history) will always be here, ready to be improved once you're a little more familiar with wikiquette. 71.234.211.99 (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved (not deleted, not 'destroyed' in any way) your "signed" paragraph to the Reception section I just created (it seems to fit better there than in an episode description). Bear in mind, however, that since it is unsourced original research, it could still be deleted by anyone, at any time, without warning (mind you, it would still exist in the history, in case you wanted to recover it). I also moved (again, not deleted) the Fukushima Diary link from the episode 6 description (where I replaced it with liks to Wiki's own Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster page) to the external links area, as per WP:EL ("External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.""...but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." I only left the other [links within episode descriptions] because they were directly referenced in the show. If you have any issues with this, let me know. 71.234.211.99 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And someone else just removed the ramaining two Fukushima-related links 71.234.211.99 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Doomsday Preppers

In regards to Doomsday Preppers

I'm going to explain, in excessive detail, each of my modifications to the episode descriptions, and whiy I think they're improvements. (which is what this is for) Pilot: No Change Episode 1: Added "To be used" to "demonstrates urban jungle survival skills [to be used] in the event of a massive earthquake", because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Added comma after Texas. Episode 2: Depluralized first instance of "survivalist" and added comma. Changed "Kellene Bishop a Utah resident has stored away the finer things in life for a financial collapse" >>to>> "Kellene Bishop of Utah has stocked only the finest gourmet survival foods in preparation for financial collapse", because "of Utah" flows better than "a Utah resident", and she specifically stocks fancy foods, not all of "the finer things in life". Added proper commas and quotation marks to the "Doris day of doom", and linked New Madrid to the realavant article. Episode 3: Deleted "himself". Deleted "expert" and changed "the" to "a" (weasel words) in Jason Charles section. Changed "has prepared well" to "is preparing" (subtle WP:pov) Episode 4: No change. Episode 5: Added commas, deleted "needed" and changed "many needed homestead techniques to the viewers based upon overpopulation" >>to>> "homesteading techniques he believes will become necessary based upon overpopulation" (POV again). Changed "the survival underground missile bunker builder invests in" >>to>> "turns an underground missile silo into a bunker to" (because he didn't just build an "underground missile bunker", he built an "underground bunker" in a "missile [silo]"), and deleted "too". Deleted "a gorgeous yet very inventive prepper" (if you don't realize that that's unnecessary POV with no place in an encyclopedia; there's no hope for you). Episode 6: Changed "round" to "around"; added comma; changed "is" to "aims to" (because he cant get everyone ready). Changed "Fukushima radiated" to "Fukushina-irradiated". Deleted "useful" (POV). Delinking "Fuel storage" (redlink). Moved Fukushima external link to External Links. Episode 7: Changed "is rightly prepared teaching survival techniques for the" to "is prepared, teaching techniques for surviving a" (bad grimmer, POV), and linked depression. Changed "are preparing to survive and thrive fully underground when doomsday arrives in their decommissioned Atlas missile site" >>to>> "are preparing to survive fully underground in their decommissioned Atlas missile silo when doomsday arrives." because "thrive" is unnecessary, and the rest didn't make sense (They're expecting doomsday to happen in their silo! Why the hell would they stay there?) Episode 8: Added commas. Linked peak oil. Deleted California. Episode 9: Changed "has gone to the extent of moving his family to Idaho for a better" to "has moved his family to Idaho for a" (POV, bad flow). Added commas. Changed "in case of" to "in preparation for". Changed: "to prepare for any "unnatural" event" to "to prepare for refugees fleeing from disasters in larger nearby cities" (because, according to the show, that's what she's doing). Added commas. Changed "have done quite well" to "have made great progress" (somewhat less POV). Episode 10: Deleted: "Hooray! one if the best we have seen" (which, without a reference, is just your opinion). Added commas. Changed: "Carolina resident Laura Kunzie has concerns to a rapid airborne flu outbreak and is preparing so." >>to>> "Carolina resident Laura Kunzie is preparing for a massive airborne flu outbreak." (because the first one was a terrible run-on). Episode 11: Changed "these" to "such". Deleted "both" (unnecessary). Episode 12: Deleted "in many ways". Changed "that it may be a good idea to prepare for any event even if it is preparing a little just in case." (another terrible run-on) >>to>> "that any emergency preparation is better than none." (And, of course, moving 'your' paragraph (which still needs to be edited to remove the WP:POV, source it, and get rid of that signature)) As you can see (if you can see through the rambling), most of what I did was fixing punctuation, and rearranging your sentences so that they made more sense, or, in other words, grammar. Aside from that, I did clip some POV, and make a few small additions. I didn't change the names 'you worked so hard to correct', or (on the whole) the overall meanings of the descriptions. (Which begs the question: Did you even look at the diffs?) If you have specific problems, make the edits, and/or note them here/on the article talk page; DO NOT just revert the whole thing without noting specific concerns for each of my modifications. Note: While major edits (especially involving actual wanton deletion) will usually be explained on the talk page, you should expect to never get this kind of courtesy again (I'm only doing this because you seem to be unable to use/interpret the history/diffs). P.S. I also linked a few more key terms with their respective articles. 71.234.211.99 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC) And remember, I'm not saying my version is perfect, or that your version was completely horrible, just that I found mine to be superficially better, and more in line with wiki policies. All I'm asking for are wiki-relevant reasons for why you thought yours was better (or mine was worse). And I'm certainly not going to stop you from editing [this or any other article], but note that simply reverting my edit (without well-thought-out discussion and some degree of WP:CON) after this would border on WP:Edit War 71.234.211.99 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

71.234.211.99 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)