User talk:Bud Whiteye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Sorry, I'm not sure what your question is exactly, but creating some links to Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian Community Under Seige from other articles will help, as people will be much more likely to read/improve it. --W.marsh 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks W. marsh: Sorry. The question was, "Why was your name connected to the name of my contribution?" I didn't see any editing or suggestions or other in-put - just your name. The short larger Q was, will the reading public ever see this contribution? Thanks BW

W. marsh: May I prevail upon you to ask one more Q. Every time I click on "my talk" the reply I get is there is, no "user talk" exists under this name, to create one... But yet, we're using one now. Why is that?

Someone flagged my submission as NPOV, but failed to point out the discrepency. Under the rules as I understood them, anyone who chooses to flag this as NPOV must be clear on the objectional part of the read. Bud Whiteye

I (or rather, my bot) editted the page because it adds a message to all pages that don't have any inbound links, just pointing that out, since most people don't realize that problem. Your talk page didn't exist until I posted here, so that should explain that. As for NPOV, see WP:NPOV... pages need to be neutral and so on. If someone won't explain what the problem is though, you can remove the tag. --W.marsh 13:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Bud Whiteye! I'm ulayiti, and I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me on my talk page. You can also have a look at the help pages or put up a question at the village pump. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! - ulayiti (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ezeu[edit]

Hello, there is always a certain amount of stress that new editors experience, especially when articles they write are questioned, or even deleted outright. There are certain policies and community consensus about how Wikipedia articles should be written. The most important of these are:

  1. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. This is very difficult and almost impossible to implement 100%, but it is a good to strive for neutrality, because if you are obviously biased, your edits will be challanged, and possibly removed.
  2. What you write should be verifiable. Give references. Asserting that one knows something is not enough. This is especially important when one writes about topics that are controversial or disputed.
  3. No original research. And this one may refer to the article Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian Community Under Seige which you wrote. Original research refers to previously unpublished theories, concepts, arguments, interpretations etc. The reason for this is that otherwise Wikipedia may be used as a vehicle for propaganda or advertising, which is contrary to the concept of the encyclopedia.

For more, see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Five pillars.
Good editing. --Ezeu 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Replied on my talk page at User talk:Ezeu (at the bottom of the page) to keep the discussion in one place.--Ezeu 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The is a problem with systemic bias on wikipedia, so some subjects just don't get the same attention. I am sure there are people who have heard of the plight of the First nations at Aamjiwnaang, but since there are more than a million articles here, they may editing or reading other things. You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or the discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. --Ezeu 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bud[edit]

Wow, you sure ask a lot of questions! (just kidding, actually they're all good questions). Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not an owner, I'm an admin. There are about 1000 admins (probably more by now), though not all of us are active at any one time, and some are more active than others. I do a lot of editing and creating new articles, but I also spend a lot of time with the mop and bucket, cleaning things up, trying to keep things from boiling over when there are disagreements, removing stuff that fails our notability standards. Unfortunately, your article fails our most basic premise, that of Neutral point of view. In other words, you set out with an aim of trying to right a wrong, but we're an encyclopedia, not a place for people to try to get others to accept a point of view. If you want to write an article on the Sarnia area's pollution, you might get away with it so long as you remembered to write it from neutral point of view, and you cited your evidence (See our policy at WP:V). We also have several guildelines on "notability", meaning whether or not the subject of an article is of sufficient merit to rate an article. See Wikipedia:Notability. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello, nice talking to you. I got your message, but could not uderstand it without the link. Please give me the link to the page you are talking about. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks again for your response (a quick one; over in a page where I tried to reach all of the editors (I wrote them all) who had concerns. I have only your reply (NPOV) and a sentence that includes "...please don't hesitate to ask." So, I did. I explained that everyone, including the manufacturers hold the view on how polluted Aamjiwnaang and Sarnia are. Then I asked some technical q's to try to be inkeeping with Wiki Policies. Now, this is in "My Page" (Bud Whiteye) can you get this from here? Thanks, Bud Whiteye Bud Whiteye 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bud. Your comments seemed to indicate that I had not replied to your question, but I guess I misread what you were trying to say. An Articles for Deletion discussion is for everybody at Wikipedia to chime in with their opinions as to whether or not an article should stay. Unfortunately, although your article would make a good op-ed piece, it isn't an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article presents facts, not opinions. Like I said above, if you could write an NPOV article on Pollution in Sarnia (or add it to the Sarnia, Ontario article as a section, and give us statistics and not the flowery language of your article (which is good writing, I'm not knocking that, it's just not the straightfoward method of writing that we want to see in an encylopedia article), then nobody would mind your doing that. So long as you present links to sites on the web or books or articles which support your thesis. Right now what you have is original research, something we can't keep. You also need to follow WP:V to see what we are looking for as far as verifiability. Am I explaining things to your satisfaction? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Editor Z told me that since my article is "out there" (Google, Anishenabek News, and so on) it is not OR. I don't know who Editor Z is, but if he/she told you that, they're wrong. Your article has gotten picked up by the Google spider which reads all of Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it can stay. It's original research, and violates our policy at WP:NOR. Like I said above, if you rewrite it as a statistical analysis and provide verifiable references, you can keep it. But you cannot write articles promote a point of view. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Bud![edit]

Sorry for replying late, I didn't see your message, which is completly my fault. Anyways on to explain some of your comments. You mentioned that I'm "advising others that (your) story is up for a 'delete.'" That is not true in the slightest bit, all I did was put down my 2 cents, anyone can agree or disagree with me as much as they want to. Also, please see WP:OWN, in regards to that comment. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say when addressing your writing ability, as a fellow writer, I don't critize anyone's work. The issue with the article really had to due with it's nature of stating opinions and being from a onesided perspective. Please see WP:NPOV, sorry if I missed anything. If you want to contact me press that little talk thing next to my name. I hope you do, I'm more than willing to discuss the topic at length. Thanks! Yanksox (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Wikipedia's processing can be confusing, it gets us all at one time. :) Um, right now, I'm going to look through the article and just point out certain points that really don't confirm to NPOV standards. Don't let this get you down! Seriously, you are a great addition to the project and I would love to help you out more. I'll probably be back online in a few hours. Again, don't be afraid to contact me! Yanksox (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope that was a joking comment, you should be proud of yourself. Many people on Wikipedia don't make a great first article, look at mine:Wally. Um, looking through the article, it would make an excellent argument essay, however over here we have to try to be fair and balanced (not exactly like Fox News :P), um some quick statements from the article, "So the picture remains as it has for decades, if you live there, you find there are ceaseless hissing sounds from the plants and, smoke and steam billowing upward without end from any direction, no matter where you stand on Aamjiwnaang territory." That statement seems to just not fit in very well, it appeats to be something that would appear in a local newspaper, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also, I'm noticing nice descriptive, imaginative wording, however, we need to be blunt. That doesn't mean we be straightforward, but we need to be simple yet can use elaborate wording. It's a tough job, but people do it all the time. "The CEOs of these monoliths scurry for answers to leaks and spills only to report that it couldn’t be helped – for so many years that has been the standard. As if a flurry of activity after the fact is a sign of caring – only to show the same report time after time." That statment is very POV, prehaps a better wording could be, "The company's CEOs have attempted to answer all questions, however most residents feel unsatisfied by the response." Not the best, but a little less POV. "Empirical evidence; empirical law appears to show there is no fail-safe means to end the leaks and escapes of toxins, perhaps because of the sheer size of each site. Can the scientific community conclude the same within natural laws as well?" You end here with a question mark, which is awesome to end an essay and make the reader think. However, we need the reader to feel like they have an answer and have gained new knowledge so they can ask answers and go forth. It's giving them the power of knowledge. I know these aren't the best answers, but we can keep chating about this. Yanksox (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Wow, you replied quickly! Everybody has as any shots as they need to really complete an article. About rewriting Aamjiwnaang, there isn't any rule agaisnt it, but keep in mind an AfD debate lasts sometime around five days, so it will closed. Of course, I can put an extension request up there. But, if this article can be rewritten, which I know you can do, then it could be kept. Let me know your thoughts. Yanksox (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I just noticed the title of your last post. Referencing the catch? :P Yanksox (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, to be honest, I'm not sure. But if it gets deleted, it's not the end of the world. I can file a request with WP:DRV, and see what happens. I'm going to guess a few days till an admin wonders over to it. Btw, have you ever read A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole? Remember, there are alot of people around here who are willing to help, and if you need help as soon as possible, put {{helpme}} on your talk and say what's wrong. Someone should be there rather soon. Cheers! Yanksox (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Btw, check out WP:MoS, not just for the article, but the links at the bottom are really great. Yanksox (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure about it being done else somewhere else on here, I'll look into it. About deletion, they wouldn't delete you! You would have to be really bad to be blocked forever. Um, I will keep looking into this, keep in mind, I'm busy between two or three things, so I may be drifting in my response time. Thanks! Yanksox (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was quick[edit]

I found the page that was being referenced, it's this, so you actually, can let the deletion of the other page run out while you take the information you know and incorporate into that page. Yanksox (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm going to be working soon and I won't have access to a computer. Bud, you really are an awesome addition to this project. No one steps in here, with complete knowledge of the rules. It took me and other people a little bumping around to get used to it. I think with Aamjiwnaang First Nation, you can do a good job as it makes mention of the chemicals, you could really expand on that. Yanksox (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend, copying and pasting your original article, while examing the recommended style of Wikipedia and slowly build upon that article. No one person owns an article. It's a big community and we all want to support each other. I think too often we forget there are people behind these words. I know you can contribute well to that article. I think if you know anything else about the town you can definitly add on to it. Again, I'm here to help. Yanksox (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That should be helpful, I think you should take your time in trying to complete that article with the facts/sources that you know of. If there is anything else in Wiki that interests/boggles you, feel free to contact me. Yanksox (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, just a random little tid-bit, I noticed you try to sign your posts as "Bud." If you click the my talk button that's next to your username and the little guy, you can click my preferences and go to nickname and enter "Bud," then what you enter in there will appear when you put ~~~~ down. Yanksox (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I haven't had a chance to edit Wikipedia that much recently.

You don't really need to keep user talk page discussions in one place (usually). Most of the time you can talk to people on their user talk page and they reply to you on yours. But you can also reply to others on your talk page, and they'll see it if they have it on their watchlist. I've found that most of the time it's good to reply to people on their own talk pages though. - ulayiti (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the names of user talk pages are of the form 'User talk:Username'. Some people put a link to their talk page in their signatures, but if they don't, you can get to anyone's talk page by clicking their user name (which will take you to the user page) and then the little 'discussion' tab on top of the page. Another way to get there is to type 'User talk:Username' (for example User talk:Ulayiti for me) into the bit of the address bar of your browser that normally has the article name.
If you want to put a link to your talk page on your signature, you can do it by adding something like [[User talk:Bud Whiteye|(talk)]] into the signature field in your preferences. - ulayiti (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Making a subpage[edit]

The only time a subpage is challenged is if it's grossly out of line, I still recomment is you make a User talk:Bud Whiteye/Aamjiwnaang, just put a notice saying it's for editing purposes. You won't be hit w/ OR or NPOV since it's your personal space. It would be fine from what I know. Yanksox (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New Page[edit]

It will be done ASAP. I was just staring at it when your message came in. Bud {{talk}} 17:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bud, when I said a subpage I did mean the article. Don't worry, I cut and past the article into YOUR userspace right here: User talk:Bud Whiteye/Aamjiwnaang. Now, you can work on it there as long as you want without worrying about people tagging it. If you need anything you can contact me. Yanksox (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


You can create an external link by typing in the web address (remember to start it with 'http://', or else it won't work) and a name for the link inside single square brackets, separated by a space. For example, [ Wikipedia] would produce Wikipedia.

There's also a specific way (which I find very useful) to make footnote references into articles. You can have a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes. - ulayiti (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Of course you can show me and any member of the community the edits, Bud. That's a non-issue. Yanksox (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-jewish view[edit]

What the heck are you talk about? What did I ask you to give a non-jewish opinion on? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not yelling. Please point me to the diff in which I asked you to give an opinion on something! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bud[edit]

Um, I guess what you are looking for is really a rather extensive list. Going here should help you out. Yanksox 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Bud[edit]

Bud, of course, it's okay if you edit articles. I don't know why you would think it would be otherwise. I hope you are doing well, and you can contact me if you need help. Yanksox 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)