User talk:Tranquillity Base
Welcome!
[edit]Hello Tranquillity Base, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Crafty (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop removing adequately sourced information from this article. If you have a problem discuss it on the article talkpage in an endeavour to achieve a consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and this article is somewhat contentious. Crafty (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Diff to relevant edit: [1] Crafty (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- [2] Wikipeida is not a source. sometimes we screw up. I need to track down the source that mentions Sea Shepherd specifically with the research based whaling concern but from the sources I have gone through it was through at least 1994. We can make it clear that later Norwegian whaling was not research based.Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your previous edit in the discussion page came as a shock to me. I understand you are biased and you know that I am. Regardless, there has been an effort to improve the article. Your POV comment was a low blow. Bring up the concern and lets fix it. I won't give you a hard time for having an account solely for the purpose of making 49 edits to this single article which can be easily viewed as pro Sea Shepherd. Your IP is shielded now without a sock puppet check but it looks like the IP associated with Sea Shepherd has stopped editing since you started. Looks like a duck to me but you could just be some guy like me who is interested in the subject matter. I don't know and I don't care. Continue to make valid contributions and don't get in the habit of acting like Geronimo. The article was a mess due to POV and COI concerns. It is now getting fixed. We can do this without giving each other a hard time about the mission statement. That is why the RfC is opened. Editors not involved can shed some light on this that we may not be able to see.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been the best at completely formatting refs myself but if you get a chance, throw a ref name on sources you cite more than once {WP:REFNAME). This will consolidate the list at the bottom of the page.
Haven't gone through it allbut I am sure your recent inclusion of so much sourced content can only be a good thing for the article.Cptnono (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been the best at completely formatting refs myself but if you get a chance, throw a ref name on sources you cite more than once {WP:REFNAME). This will consolidate the list at the bottom of the page.
- Your previous edit in the discussion page came as a shock to me. I understand you are biased and you know that I am. Regardless, there has been an effort to improve the article. Your POV comment was a low blow. Bring up the concern and lets fix it. I won't give you a hard time for having an account solely for the purpose of making 49 edits to this single article which can be easily viewed as pro Sea Shepherd. Your IP is shielded now without a sock puppet check but it looks like the IP associated with Sea Shepherd has stopped editing since you started. Looks like a duck to me but you could just be some guy like me who is interested in the subject matter. I don't know and I don't care. Continue to make valid contributions and don't get in the habit of acting like Geronimo. The article was a mess due to POV and COI concerns. It is now getting fixed. We can do this without giving each other a hard time about the mission statement. That is why the RfC is opened. Editors not involved can shed some light on this that we may not be able to see.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up:
- Thank you for adding info on Au and NZ non-lethal line. This was in the National Geographic source and should have been included
- Au statements on "shots"/"warning balls"/"warning" is a discussion started on two other articles some time ago at Whale Wars and Paul Watson.Cptnono (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a note to say thanks for your edits at SSCS. The organization and introduction sections are looking good now. Those sections now do not appear to have any undue wieght on any sources and it seems to present an honest view of the expert opinion. Thanks for your work. Now to tackle operations. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Eco-terrorism
[edit]Hi Tranquillity Base. Yes, you picked an area where Wikipedia doesn't work very well. Obsessed single issue POV users who want to toss around terms like "terrorism" can take up huge amounts of time and energy, with nothing to show for it. Which is why I'm steering clear at the moment. Eventually they lose interest. You are doing a good job developing the article and trying to keep it clean. You must be a bit of a saint. If you can just keep doing that, and make sure your entries are not loaded and are properly cited, then you are laying a good foundation for the article. Keep your end up and don't let it wind you up. Eventually other editors will tidy the biases. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is simply a notification to you that someone added something to your talk page --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've just realised that I misunderstood your question. That notification you get happens automatically every time someone, apart from yourself, edits one of your user pages. In the same way, if you change anything on other editor's user page, that editor automatically gets notified. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed that you and a few other editors have a distaste for using the category eco-terrorist. Unfortunately for folks who really like the SSCS, that is how they are being described in the media. Please allow the article to reflect the notable expert opinion on the subject and not that of fans of the show who might also be wiki editors. I've noticed that in the past few months you've grown a TON in your editing abillities. I challenge you on this front to examine closely wiki policies regarding the word eco-terrorist, look at what's required for the term, look at how other articles have done it and see if we are in compliance with the policy. In my judgement because of the well-cited sources, we are in compliance with the policies. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
TU
[edit]Thank you for your cooperation [3]. Sincerely.--9 hits (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Removal of content on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
[edit]
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sea Shepherd Coservation Society, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
You have removed the category eco-terrorist from this page again. The reasons you cited this time are "What you call 'notabe sources' aren't".
I believe if you look at these you will find them all to be notable as we have allready stated in the talk page. There was much discussion previously that you were involved in regarding these sources which is why they currently stand on the page. They are all notable. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5166346/Paul-Watson-Sea-Shepherd-eco-warrior-fighting-to-stop-whaling-and-seal-hunts.html
The other reason you gave is because you feel that the category "eco-terrorist" is a pseudo-science. Regardless of your feelings about the term, multiple national governmental employees use the terms in thier reports, as do news outlets and other organizations when describing SSCS. (as the links demonstrate). It is thier view we are recording on the page. Please do not remove content just based on your feelings about the term, lets go with the experts' feelings on the term. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, on the talk page you state "The field to which I am referring is international environmental law and policy, which is where I work." I think it's wonderful that you, while working in the field wish to put your own two cents into a relevent article. But please note taht it is in violation of wiki policy to base your edits on your own work and opinion. Please try to stick with the notable experts quoted in the reliable sources. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Sea Shepherds Conservation Society, you will be blocked from editing.
Per discussion on that page, the information that they are part of the discussion on eco-terroism is well documented. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, you will be blocked from editing.
- It is a shame that adjustments to your edits was met with reverts and not discussion. All of my reasoning is mentioned on the talk page and I assume my changes will be approved. I will not revert just like I didn't while you, #68, and several others engaged in an edit war even after a request to stop was given on the talk page. For this reasoning I have made notice here.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
See this thread about your edits of the Sea Shepherd article, where you may add your own views if you wish. My comment here is intended to supplement Cptnono's notice above. If you intend to continue working on the controversial aspects of this article, including the terrorism label, you'd be well advised to think about the AN3 discussion as well as the review at WP:AN3#Sea Shepherd. All parties to an edit war risk being blocked if they won't work patiently toward consensus on Talk. You are expected to abide by whatever is decided on the Talk page. If agreement can't be reached, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You've continued to revert disputed items without waiting for the result of the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)