Seedcollector
Welcome! edit
|
April 2012 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Doomsday Preppers has been reverted.
Your edit here to Doomsday Preppers was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/user/PeterPrepper) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Copied from: Talk:Doomsday Preppers edit
| Copied from: Talk:Doomsday Preppers |
|---|
|
Whoa. First, thank you for recognizing the links were excessive, and removing them per WP:EL. Second, I didn't mean to WP:BITE you; after all, as far as number of edits is concerned, I'm fairly new here too. I felt I had to come on strong because conflicts-of-intrest can be a big problem, and you admitted to a potential conflict of interest. Like I said, most of what you've done was improvement; even reverting my edits could have been argued to be improvement (which is why I offered a chance for explanation). Unfortunately, there is still a problem with that POV paragraph. Opinions, no matter how valid, do not belong in Wikipedia articles (unless they are the opinions of a reliable source, with citations). Also, signed comments are for the talk page, not articles (and signatures are generated automatically when you type four "~" (tildes)). So, unless you can edit it to comply with (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc.) it will still have to go. (there are plenty of places to put your opinions and get back at the show, but Wikipedia is not one of them). And I wasn't trying to 'destroy your honest work', I was simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (which is, after all, the main reason we should all have for being here). Evidence of that is that I did not simply revert your reverts (and so on), or report you to the conflict of interest notice board, but instead opened a discussion (the preferred method of averting conflicts). The fact that 'anyone can edit' can be a harsh reality of this project, and one I hope you can work with. In short, I hope I didn't scare you off; I think you have great potential for future editing. While you could certainly continue editing this article, I would recommend you take a break from this article, skim a few of the major policy pages (linked above and on your own talk page), and try you hand at some other articles (those that you are knowledgable about, but have less of a vested interest in; you seem to have some expertise in computers and agriculture). This article (and all your previous edits/versions; see the history) will always be here, ready to be improved once you're a little more familiar with wikiquette. 71.234.211.99 (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
|
And someone else just removed the remaining two Fukushima-related links 71.234.211.99 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In regards to Doomsday Preppers edit
| In regards to Doomsday Preppers |
|---|
|
I'm going to explain, in excessive detail, each of my modifications to the episode descriptions, and whiy I think they're improvements. (which is what this is for) Pilot: No Change Episode 1: Added "To be used" to "demonstrates urban jungle survival skills [to be used] in the event of a massive earthquake", because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Added comma after Texas. Episode 2: Depluralized first instance of "survivalist" and added comma. Changed "Kellene Bishop a Utah resident has stored away the finer things in life for a financial collapse" >>to>> "Kellene Bishop of Utah has stocked only the finest gourmet survival foods in preparation for financial collapse", because "of Utah" flows better than "a Utah resident", and she specifically stocks fancy foods, not all of "the finer things in life". Added proper commas and quotation marks to the "Doris day of doom", and linked New Madrid to the realavant article. Episode 3: Deleted "himself". Deleted "expert" and changed "the" to "a" (weasel words) in Jason Charles section. Changed "has prepared well" to "is preparing" (subtle WP:pov) Episode 4: No change. Episode 5: Added commas, deleted "needed" and changed "many needed homestead techniques to the viewers based upon overpopulation" >>to>> "homesteading techniques he believes will become necessary based upon overpopulation" (POV again). Changed "the survival underground missile bunker builder invests in" >>to>> "turns an underground missile silo into a bunker to" (because he didn't just build an "underground missile bunker", he built an "underground bunker" in a "missile [silo]"), and deleted "too". Deleted "a gorgeous yet very inventive prepper" (if you don't realize that that's unnecessary POV with no place in an encyclopedia; there's no hope for you). Episode 6: Changed "round" to "around"; added comma; changed "is" to "aims to" (because he cant get everyone ready). Changed "Fukushima radiated" to "Fukushina-irradiated". Deleted "useful" (POV). Delinking "Fuel storage" (redlink). Moved Fukushima external link to External Links. Episode 7: Changed "is rightly prepared teaching survival techniques for the" to "is prepared, teaching techniques for surviving a" (bad grimmer, POV), and linked depression. Changed "are preparing to survive and thrive fully underground when doomsday arrives in their decommissioned Atlas missile site" >>to>> "are preparing to survive fully underground in their decommissioned Atlas missile silo when doomsday arrives." because "thrive" is unnecessary, and the rest didn't make sense (They're expecting doomsday to happen in their silo! Why the hell would they stay there?) Episode 8: Added commas. Linked peak oil. Deleted California. Episode 9: Changed "has gone to the extent of moving his family to Idaho for a better" to "has moved his family to Idaho for a" (POV, bad flow). Added commas. Changed "in case of" to "in preparation for". Changed: "to prepare for any "unnatural" event" to "to prepare for refugees fleeing from disasters in larger nearby cities" (because, according to the show, that's what she's doing). Added commas. Changed "have done quite well" to "have made great progress" (somewhat less POV). Episode 10: Deleted: "Hooray! one if the best we have seen" (which, without a reference, is just your opinion). Added commas. Changed: "Carolina resident Laura Kunzie has concerns to a rapid airborne flu outbreak and is preparing so." >>to>> "Carolina resident Laura Kunzie is preparing for a massive airborne flu outbreak." (because the first one was a terrible run-on). Episode 11: Changed "these" to "such". Deleted "both" (unnecessary). Episode 12: Deleted "in many ways". Changed "that it may be a good idea to prepare for any event even if it is preparing a little just in case." (another terrible run-on) >>to>> "that any emergency preparation is better than none." (And, of course, moving 'your' paragraph (which still needs to be edited to remove the WP:POV, source it, and get rid of that signature)) As you can see (if you can see through the rambling), most of what I did was fixing punctuation, and rearranging your sentences so that they made more sense, or, in other words, grammar. Aside from that, I did clip some POV, and make a few small additions. I didn't change the names 'you worked so hard to correct', or (on the whole) the overall meanings of the descriptions. (Which begs the question: Did you even look at the diffs?) If you have specific problems, make the edits, and/or note them here/on the article talk page; DO NOT just revert the whole thing without noting specific concerns for each of my modifications. Note: While major edits (especially involving actual wanton deletion) will usually be explained on the talk page, you should expect to never get this kind of courtesy again (I'm only doing this because you seem to be unable to use/interpret the history/diffs). P.S. I also linked a few more key terms with their respective articles. 71.234.211.99 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC) And remember, I'm not saying my version is perfect, or that your version was completely horrible, just that I found mine to be superficially better, and more in line with wiki policies. All I'm asking for are wiki-relevant reasons for why you thought yours was better (or mine was worse). And I'm certainly not going to stop you from editing [this or any other article], but note that simply reverting my edit (without well-thought-out discussion and some degree of WP:CON) after this would border on WP:Edit War 71.234.211.99 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
71.234.211.99 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
That paragraph edit
Well, it's been nearly two weeks, and you haven't takan any action on this paragraph, so I'm moving it here. While I'm not a Wikipedia expert, I can say that it goes against (at least) the pollicies and guidelines I've listed below it. I encourage you to reinsert it, if you can edit it to comply.
- There are no real pro's and con's to the show, basically an overview. Some of the years great show members and their mindset in why they and you might possibly be in a "disaster" one day. The show offered very "different" people and some unique lifestyles; Yes, we believe the creators of Doomsday Preppers showed their concerns like many Americans: "if there is something wrong out there being more self sufficient is helpful to you, your family's and communities future". If or when something in the future fails, these resourceful people are mentally ready to do what it takes to restore society. If something happens, we need to pray that they succeed. - The Seed Collector
Some Policies and Guidlines this violates:
WP:Signature, specifically: "When editing a page, main namespace articles should not be signed, because the article is a shared work..." Also note: "Please sign your posts on talk pages, using ~~~~." Which is to say, typing four tildes automatically generates a WP-appropriate signature (you can alter the exact look of said signature on your user preferences); a manually typed "signature" that does not link to your userpage, contrbutions, or talk page, isn't a real "signature" on WP.
WP:MOS. One of the most important. Among the most glaring problems (reavivant to this): grammer; the scare quotes around "disaster" and "different"; a long qoute ("if there is something wrong out there being more self sufficient is helpful to you, your family's and communities future") with no reference/attribution (if it's from a WP:RS, cite it; if it's from you, get rid of it);
WP:VERIFY. One of three core content policies. "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (plot/episode descriptions are one of the few potential exceptions; they can be verified simply by viewing the media, and citations are usually discouraged in those). Note that your paragraph has no citations, and seems (as indicated by the POV phaseology and the fact you thought it proper to sign it) as though you did "just make things up." (Note especially the difference between verifiablilty and WP:Truth)
WP:NPOV. One of three core content policies. "Articles [and sections within articles] mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The lack of citations, and the use of phrases such as "these resourceful people are mentally ready" (after all, you claim to be one of 'those' people), speaks of a less-than-nuetral point of view (and it's really hard for me to have to say that) (See also: WP:WEASEL)
WP:NOR. One of three core content policies. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." If that paragraph is based solely on your original thoughts, and you can't find "reliable, published sources" that agree with it, then it has no place in Wikipedia.
Other readings that might be helpful: Wikipedia:Five pillars; WP:POLICYLIST (not all of them, of course); WP:NVC; WP:COI; Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit; WP:EXCEPTIONAL; WP:WORKINPROGRESS; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Editing policy; WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY; and, most importantly (read it very carefully): WP:IGNORE.
Believe me, I don't want to just delete your work, and I don't mean to bog you down with rules. However, I don't think the article is improved by this paragraph in its current state (and the noted policies and guidelines mostly agree with me), and the only ways I can think to edit it to comply would completely change it (or do away with it in its entirety).
To conclude, a quote from WP:IAR?: "You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia." 71.234.211.99 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)