Jump to content

User talk:68.41.80.161

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StAnselm (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 31 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please. If you have some critisism, post it. Don't spam this talk page with your own useless edit warring... again. :) I have the distinct honor of being a vandalized anon ip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

"that comment didn't look right there but it should be included somewhere" Agreed. I think it’s mentioned on the Paul Watson article, but I’m not sure where it would be best to work it in on the Whale Wars article if at all. — NRen2k5(TALK), 06:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Shepherds

I appreciate it and thank you as well. I kind of enjoy the challenge of keeping neutral even when my personal views contradict it. Let me know if you see me slip up! Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. I usually try to have a copy paste of my edit ready just in case. No worries at all.Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs so much clean up. I need to start doing proper refs now that the reverting IPs are gone. Not sure if you edit much but have fun. You'll learn a decent amount about different wiki ins and outs working on an article as broken as this. The best part will probably be removing the blatant grandstanding, though!Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some very cogent points at WP:NPOV/N regarding the SSCS dispute. Kudos to you, sir! — Kralizec! (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)`[reply]

Hi #68. Di yiu have a loog ing yet? So the eco-terroroism cat stayed for awhile than someone had a knee-jerk reaction and reverted (I fixed after 24hrs of no rebuttal was provided). Instead of discussing the issue he marked the cat for deletion. At first I was a little pissed off but reread the guideline again. There can be a few different ways to address the issue so I thought you might be interested in the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 28#Category:Eco-terrorism.
Besides that issue, we got so much good information in but then hit a wall. Let me know if you have any ideas on the next step to getting it higher on the assesment scale.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Crafty (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Thank you for your concern. Check the talk page on that article. You will see an in depth discussion as well as numerous citations that fall in line with WP:Terrorist. The POV push is coming from the opposite direction, that being to protect the image of something despite the notable expert opinion. If you ahve any problemn finding the notable expert opinion on the page, write back and I'll link it for you. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As a followup, see the discussion at category:Eco-terrorism on deletion. It seems to be a pretty solid consensus that the cat stands. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually.. here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_28#Category:Eco-terrorism .

Howdy

Howdy. I'm apparently interested in some of the same topics that you are, though lately most of my edits are more WikiGnoming (WP:GNOME) than Wiki-activism.
Especially with the controversial topics, do make sure that you stay well on the good-guys side of policy violations, as there are always people ready to pounce if you don't. (Wikipedia:List_of_policies). Drop me a line any time if I can be of any help. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox reference

The reference refers to SSCS sinking a japanese ship. Given that this has never happened, I feel that we have no choice but to see this as an unreliable source.--Terrillja talk 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's how half of the folks view the incident. Supporters of the SSCS blame the whalers, detractors of SSCS blame the Ady Gil for it's apparant last minute acceleration into the path of the larger ship. Try to present both side please. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be easy enough for you to find a reference that doesn't show how foolish and misinformed the commentator is.--Terrillja talk 23:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SSCS intro

It appears that you have added claims to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which are not supported by the reference cited. Please desist, or you will be blocked from editing.-gadfium 07:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how much you may have discussed this. Adding defamatory material which is not supported by the references is not acceptable.-gadfium 07:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I hear you, it was the "terrorism" claim that was complained about being not supported, not the pirate claim. We all agree that there is nothing contentious about the SSCS referring to themselves as pirate. Please fix your last revert or at least read the discussion in that page? THanks.--68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what agreement you may have with another editor. You cannot add defamatory statements to the article without a high quality reference. I see no reference to the statement which might support your assertion, except the Fox News interview, which doesn't appear to mention piracy, which mentions terrorism in what is only reportedly a quote without any further source. This is not a sufficient or reliable source.-gadfium 07:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sry man. It appears it had been moved somewhere along the line. Here is the apprpriate ref which is linked in the article now. http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-081229-3.html
Thanks for adding the reference. You will appreciate that we cannot tolerate such unreferenced material. With the ref, it's much more acceptable. Whether the ref actually says they admit to being pirates is a much more delicate point open to interpretation, and I'm happy for it to be included in the article until some agreement is hammered out on the talk page.-gadfium 08:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (68.41.80.161) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.41.80.161&oldid=341156316"