User talk:Untileverycageisempty

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, will you please use an edit summary when editing, thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. :-)

Just a note to say that, when you're adding links to "see also," check first to make sure they're not already linked in the animal rights template, or in the article. See also is for internal links that otherwise don't appear on the page, and occasionally for ones that you feel need to be emphasized (though if they're on the template, that's usually regarded as emphasis enough). We have three animal-rights related templates, by the way:

Also, if you'd like to join the Animal Rights Wikiproject, you can sign up here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The above article was deleted as it contained what appears to be

Seeing your recent edits, I'm concerned that you're pushing sales of the above author's books. I've removed the links to the book from all the articles in which you've added them. I'm sure you understand! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have concerns with your username. Would you be inclined to change it? Best, Mercury 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have now received a number of messages about your edits on wikipedia. Yet at present you do not seem to have taken on board any of the comments (such as providing edit summaries etc). I am assuming good faith in your edits, however I really would strongly suggest that you read how to edit on wikipedia and in particular how to create articles etc before you continue as a number of your edits are only creating more work for other editors. If you need any assistance you only have to ask, but please tak on board the advice you are being given. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Apologies, I have tried to update some pages that clearly were missing links to relevant pages. Such as ALF to ALFSG and visa versa with the Press Office etc.
2. FYI: Keith Mann is a trained lawyer.
3. I find this offensive, the ideological meaning of username is not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Untileverycageisempty (talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 November 2007

I understand the points you're trying to make, and the links you have added obviously show that you're trying to help the project. The links in the 'See Also' section, however, are generally only needed if the link itself is not mentioned in the article, and if the subject has a direct link to the 'see also' links - not just an association with them. Secondly, Keith Mann may be a trained lawyer, but he is hardly a neutral source! How about an objective analysis written by someone who isn't pro animal rights, or pro-vivisection? Finally, although your username does show your views on the subject, it's not quite... pleasant. Several other Wikipedia editors work for Huntingdon Life Sciences, and I myself have had violent run-ins with both sides in the past as part of my daily work. If we can talk about your username here, and try to come to a conclusion that suits the both of us, then hopefully we won't need to involve anyone else! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chase me, I agree that this user needs guidance; thank you for keeping an eye on things. However, I feel I have to take issue with one point you made, namely that we shouldn't link to books written by animal rights activists. Of course we must do that, in order to present their POV. Governments, scientists, activists for and against all have POV on this issue. I doubt there are any neutral sources. So what we do is use sources in accordance with V, NOR, and NPOV -- bearing in mind undue weight, appropriateness, and so on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of each, aye. I was just concerned about the additions of three or four of one PoV to each article! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved here, but can I just say that I don't see what is so wrong with this person's user name, it doesn't mention any company names and it doesn't appear threatening or violent, as long as he/she edits neutrally, that is what matters isn't it? Sue Wallace 04:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know where this should go, but have added it here. However it does seem, from the edits made, as though this user is also this user - Doingwhatwikitellsme. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems you've gained a fair few negative comments in your first few days on wikipedia. I for one appreciates some of your contributions as there are many holes in wikipedias coverage of the history of direct action. It takes some time to get round the way wikipedia works.

Things WP likes

citations, that is information backed up sources from books, newpapers, magazines

the concept of open source lies at the heart of WP

WP:NPOV

a neutral point of view.

Things WP does not like

Blatent plugs and advertising

Copyright violation

One sided advocacy.

So working with wikipedia requires a very different outlook to a campaining groups. Personally I think WP is a great means for documenting the history of the animal rights and enviromental actions and doing this is a very worthwhile task.

Take your addition of the Steve Best book. Currently the additions look like advertising. However if the book can be used as material to help document part of the history then it could server as a good reference. In particular if the book describes the work of

I hope you take the above on board, ignore it and your stay could be short lived, take heed and you could make some valuable contributions. --Salix alba (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Salix. I think your sage advice would be more likely to be noted at

User talk:Doingwhatwikitellsme Rockpocket 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Much of what I'm going to say is based on, and largely a quotation of, something written by William Pietri to another passionate editor who had been blocked, adjusted somewhat to reflect your experience here, passion and interest.

Wikipedia's articles are

Your conduct went beyond what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia. But you are new, and still learning, and appropriately directed passion and energy could be very helpful. What you need to learn is how to direct your passion and energy, and what bounds to keep yourself within. For example, a passionate butterfly lover who wanted to make sure we had the best possible article on every

So, why are you here? Are you here to help create a body of free knowledge in the form of an encyclopedia, or are you here as an advocate for a point of view? We have much more use for editors passionate about expanding knowledge than for editors advocating changes in society. If you are here to help create free knowledge, we may be able to work with you. If you are here to advocate for a change in society, then we probably need to release you, unharmed, into the wilds - and shut the door firmly against your return. Right now, this is an open question among the site administrators.

If you are here to create knowledge, are there non-contentious topic areas on which you could work? Wild plants or animals found in your garden? The history of former towns in your country of residence? Historic sites? The possibilities are endless; those examples are ones I have worked on myself in the last fortnight based on things I've seen or done. If you come back, consider first working on some articles where you have knowledge but aren't so passionate. (You may find that hard, but consider that Wikipedia has made it for years without the perfect article on any particular topic; another few weeks won't hurt much in the grand scheme of things, and you'll do better work here with a bit more experience.)

Also consider reading through the Wikipedia policies to get an appreciation for what we're up to. A good place to start is Wikipedia:Five pillars. You'll come to see that although these may feel constraining, they will work in your favor over the long haul: when people with opposing views to yours turn up, we will be equally dilligent in making sure that they don't delete inconvenient facts or links to your views.

When you do start back on this article, consider starting small. Put in a single sentence that you feel is fair, accurate, and neutrally stated. Give it a few days to see how people react, and then add another couple. And a couple of days later, see how you like your work. Does it really do what you thought it did? Is it improving knowledge or advocating for change? As a normal writer, strong views are a great help. But as a Wikipedia editor, they impose a special burden: because you are obligated to

You got your fingers burned in your first visit here. Do you want to come back? Only you can answer that question. Do you want to create an encyclopedia, or change the world? That we should talk about. Please respond if you do wish to return to editing. Explain what you thought you were doing, and what you will be doing if we open the door to resumed editing.

I have nominated Southern Animal Rights Coalition, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Animal Rights Coalition. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nuttah (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Animal Rights Coalition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Animal Rights Coalition (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help!) 10:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]