User talk:Aravis195

March 2012

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 Dolphin drive hunting 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 this. Thank you. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. the articles cited contain facts, with some opinion - though not from me; the writer used emotion. This should not invalidate the articles, which contain facts and are factually useful. The first edit contains only numbers of drive hunt fisheries and is a valid update to the facts of the article. Therefore I dispute your opinion that any of my edits are invalid. No copyright violations; no original research. All citations correctly done. I am a new user but am adhering to guidelines as much as possible, and wish only to publish facts about the dolphin drive hunting. Aravis195----

Thanks for your reply. I just want to point out that I have no problem with the actual facts given in the article being mentioned here. But as you had it, the big chunk of the website both skewed the POV of the article and constituted a copyright violation (Wikipedia has very specific policies for donating copyrighted materials, which you can read about here). If you want to add the figures, I would suggest you rewrite them (without the percentage/numerical redundancy) and try inserting them with a lot less commentary from the source (which, again, probably doesn't pass WP:RS anyway). At this point, I can't not revert copyvios. Sorry. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This explains things, thank you. If I and my colleagues wish to write a new article from scratch on the subject, would this make a difference to the problems you highlight here, - that is, is it only our editing of THIS article that causes these problems? If we write a new one, would it be better form Wikipedia's POV? Aravis195 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that really depends on what you're going to put in the article. Your addition to the Dolphin drive hunting article would be unacceptable anywhere on the encyclopedia. As long as you follow the guidelines laid out at WP:CREATE, there shouldn't be a problem. If you have any more questions or need help with anything, just let me know. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new article could almost make matters worse. See WP:Content forking for information on why there should only be one topic on a given subject. The exception would be if there was so much information on a subtopic that it warranted being split off—as a hypothetical example, Dolphin drive hunting in Japan. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I have pruned the edits I had done and will enter them again. Would you be so good as to let me know if this is acceptable usage now? If we can't use some sources there may be better ways to publicise our facts on this topic. Thank you. Aravis195 (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your data from? I'm concerned that ceta-base.com, which was cited in your attempted edits earlier, might not meet the definition of a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceta-base.com is a website that holds and maintains databases on cetacean matters. The owner is a valued member of the Cetacean and Ocean eco-community. Does this fit the definition? Aravis195 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit to the "Method" section changes referenced information, so I'm reverting that. I retain serious misgivings about the other edits, and may do some work on those later. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about how one can correct past information that has been shown, and widely acknowledged, to be incorrect, if one cannot contribute anything that changes info already cited? Aravis195 (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One has to provide sources that are as or more reliable and, likely, are newer.

The best process would probably be to discuss the situation at the article's talk page and reach a consensus among a wider range of editors. —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

A warning template seemed a bit impersonal, so I just wanted to drop by and let you know that I've reverted your recent edits (except for your removal of the term "radical", which was very much proper for you to do) because, as far as I can tell, most or all of the sources you listed fail WP:RS. ~~All YouTube additions must also be assumed to be a copyvio unless and until the rights holder officially donates them to Wikipedia or releases them into the public domain.~~ In addition, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, as some of your edits seem to suggest.

I don't want to get into an edit-war with you, so please do make an effort to abide by policy and respect its application. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for letting me know. I did wonder if you-tube would be allowed - I simply cannot spend all day learning though I have learnt a lot about posting on Wikipedia, and thank you for that. But I, and my colleagues, one of whom is a journalist, are finding the restrictions on Wikipedia very narrow. We are wondering how they came about and why. Surely the encyclopedia would be not only more interesting, but more informative, if they were relaxed somewhat? As to the video I said we were given written authorisation to use - why is that not enough? Do we need to get a copy of the wrtten authorisation and publish it? It is at present the only way to show the abuses of this method of kill. Ordinary copyright rules allow this in the wider world. We do think that Wikipedia is far too narrowly restricted, beyond ordinary publishing rules as to copyright. I have a question here: why did you remove both the Japanese official source material re fisheries, and the reference to the Sun newspaper article? Both were properly referenced official publications. The Sun article gave proper citation status to the method of kill edit. Please let me know why you did this, as I want to reinsert it.

Update on the YouTube thing: While it's not RS, I don't think I have probable cause to assume a copyvio. What this means in practice, as far as I can tell, is that I can't stop you from putting it in the external links section, but if you try to put it as a source embedded in the text of the article itself, I should revert it. I'm reviewing your most recent edits right now. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dolphin drive hunting.The discussion is about the topic Dolphin drive hunting. Thank you. — Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

Please cool it with the reversions. You've been told that your contributions violate policy, and you've already violated WP:3RR, so please calm down. If you do it again, I'll have no choice but to report you to WP:AN/EW. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what you are doing! WP:3RR You've asked for an admin to look at the edits over the last 24 hours and yet you continue to revert and remove, and you have removed perfectly legitimate edits. This is unfair and unhelpful. I find deep flaws with Wikipedia in the editing rules. This is one of them. How does anyone expect to have an online encyclopedia that is useful and up-to-date if every time a new user tries to edit an article, they are shut down and made to jump through hoops without end? I will be speaking to my colleagues on our options. If you revert my latest reversion, you will yourself be violating policy. What difference? Aravis195 (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference is that I'm defending the non-copyright-violating, policy-compliant version of the page. Your edits border on vandalism and are indefensible. You can find your report here. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are deluding yourself if you think that you can do anything you like because you are "defending the non-copyright-violating, policy-compliant version of the page." You are as subject to the rules as am I - and you have the additional responsibility of knowing those rules, whereas you know very well that i am a new user and only learning. And as for vandalism! You know perfectly well that this is false and malicious talk. You threatened me with a report if i reverted again, though you have done that youself. I did NOT revert again, simply protested your heavy-handed behaviour - we are not in school here! You have removed without explanation every single edit I have made since the beginning, even though I tried to stay within the rules as you pronounced them to me, and at last two of those edits were from either official Japanese sources, or perfectly legitimate sources, properly cited. And no explanation. Another user reverted one of your reversions and you immediately reverted it back again. What is this? Are you the schoolyard bully? And then you say you "seriously hope that I haven't committed any misconduct during this whole mess." My goodness! Any edit war has been carried on by you, and so I will say if I even get a chance. I have never ever been subjected to so much passive/aggressive bullying in my life, and I will not stand still for it. Petty,bureaucratic bullying. If the adminstration does not censure you I will be taking steps to publicise the way Wikipedia allows anyone to bully anyone else. I will also make sure that every interaction we have had on this page is seen. Aravis195 (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT3RR. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. You might like to refresh yourself on it. I think, failing suggestions from my colleagues, that I will leave you to your little, petty, hypocritical world and wish you joy of it.There are better ways of publishing a document that has value for the oceans and ecology and for our very existence on this battered earth, than trying to please small-minded hypocrites who use every little rule to obfuscate and to boost their own tiny egos. Enjoy the rest of your life; I have better things to do - and more useful. Aravis195 (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI Response

Aravis - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you have knowledge of a subject and reliable sources to place as references, you should feel free to contribute. However, edits such as the following are inappropriate:

[1] - Youtube and an advocacy group with a specific agenda
Documentation of this pithing method is difficult to find, anywhere. The method is relatively new at Taiji, and all the books related to the subject describe the old method. Aside from this video, and anecdotal evidence from SSCS and SJD, there is nothing yet. - If we don't have something, we don't put it in an article.
Dieter manages BlueVoice in Europe and granted us written permission to use this footage. - This is not how permission is granted on Wikipedia (see WP:OTRS for that), and videos are generally not used as sources.
dishonest reverting does not reflect well on user Evanh2008 - see WP:NPA - this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground
It should be noted that this information is from Japanese sources and is not accurate. - Do you have a reliable source to support that assertion? If so, a more encyclopedic way of putting it might be something like '...although advocacy group [xxxxxxx] claims this number is inaccurate in a report released [xxxxxx] because [xxxxxxx]...', with a citation.

I am not saying that the information you are trying to add is entirely inappropriate, but it is largely non-encyclopedic and against Wikipedia policies. The best place for you to discuss improvements to the article is Talk:Dolphin drive hunting, not WP:ANI (or here). Frank | talk 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We were not intending to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; that impression was probably given by early reversions from the user who frivolously accused us of being SSCS propaganda extremists - which is totally untrue. Two of the points you raise here were very early on and I did correct them and learn from them; but later additions, cited properly and from reliable sources, were also reverted. We will do more research on sources and possibly come back at a later date, as this article definitely needs updating - it is at least 3 years out of date. For that reason I question its status as a Good Article.Aravis195 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on the provenance of SSCS other than to say it clearly has an agenda, which makes it problematic to use in an article in an encyclopedia. This is not a news site and it's not a place primarily for provoking thought; rather it is for providing neutral information. Regarding the later additions you refer to, diffs would be helpful, but in general I would say this: just because something is properly cited from reliable sources does not mean it actually belongs in an article. There are any number of citations about who killed JFK, what Area 51 is all about, and many other things...but that doesn't mean we need to include them all here. Again, the best place for you to be is Talk:Dolphin drive hunting. Frank | talk 13:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]