Please stop removing facts from articles. In the sealing article, you are leaving in statements like "people claim such and such" while removing the facts that allow readers to decide for themselves on the issue. The number of hunters vs the number of Newfoundlanders, and the value of the seal hunt vs the GDP is all factual, and allows people to decide for themselves wether or not the hunt is significant to the Newfoundland economy.
Also, do not mark changes as minor unless they are minor. Click on the question mark beside the minor edit button and read what it says:
The rule of thumb is that an edit which is confined to spelling corrections, minor formatting, and minor rearrangement of text should be flagged as a "minor edit."
If you still have a problem, please use talk pages to discuss it instead of simply deleting things you don't like. Generic Player 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
Do you have any reliable source which calls Watson a figure in the "creation of the modern animal protest industry"? I was willing to compromise about environmentalism vs preservatioinism, but you'll have to provide a strong, neutral source to change that to "animal protest industry". Please also see W:BLP. Inserting unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory material is not permitted. -Will Beback · † · 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't have a source then please stop inserting the term. A Google search shows that you are the only person to use it. Also, please do not revert more than three times in 24 hours or you may be blocked. WP:3RR. -Will Beback · † · 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced derogatory material to "Linda McCartney". Even if Free Republic were an acceptable source (which is isn't) one forum posting wouldn't be sufficient to support the assertion that the subject was "was widely derided for hypocrisy". -Will Beback · † · 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop reinserting unsourced derogatory material. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to supply adequate references. -Will Beback · † · 20:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you read the Wikipedia policies on verifiability & the reliable sourcing guidelines. Right now your additions to Linda McCartney are not reliably sourced.--Isotope23 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Final block warning
Your participation at several articles amounts to disruption. If you have specific quotes to add from reliable sources, with full references and page numbers, then provide them. The manner in which you have been editing consistently violates several fundamental site policies. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states that that articles should not advocate particular positions editorially and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources set the standards for citing information. In particular, the burden of evidence rests with the editor who wants information to remain. It is not acceptable to cite an unencyclopedic source and then demand in an edit note that other editors locate a better reference for your text addition. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point speak to your repeated reversions against consensus.
I hope you read these policies carefully and adjust to the standards at this website because, as an administrator, I am prepared to issue user blocks beginning with your next infraction. I strongly recommend you request a mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to say she is appointed then find some sources to back that up. Until then stop removing sourced material that indicates she was elected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to adopt you, EuroTrash. ~Steptrip 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Centralized adoption page
Good evening (EST), EuroTrash. I just wanted to drop in and alert you that I've created a centralized page for my adopted users, which is located here. Btw, I had surgery earlier this morning, so pray for a speedy recovery. ~Steptrip 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)
Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.
Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Additional details about our research group are available here.