User talk:Capt Toothfish

Welcome!
Hello, Capt Toothfish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Patagonian toothfish. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Patagonian toothfish
Hi. I have some concerns that your edits to Patagonian toothfish are expressing a point of view, rather than striving for balance and neutrality. Every edit you make seems to be reinforcing a viewpoint that there are no real problems with toothfish fisheries. Please examine whether you have a conflict of interest here which makes it difficult for you to give due weight to sources which do not support the position you would like to establish. For example, are you involved in some way in the toothfish industry yourself, do you have a monetary interest in the continuation of toothfish fishing? If you do have a conflict like this, then it would be better if you didn't edit this particular article. If you are committed to the aim of Wikipedia to provide balanced articles, then you should turn your attention to other articles where you can edit in a balanced way. If you are not committed to the aim of Wikipedia, but are just trying to use Wikipedia to further some cause of your own, then you shouldn't be here. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned with whether the statements you amend have scientific back up (your sources seem okay), or whether the points you make are factual (they probably are). I'm concerned with whether you are presenting a balanced point of view. There is a raft of reliable sources available concerning toothfish fisheries, too many to include in the article. In order to write the article, you need to select a sample of these, but it needs to be a representative sample. My concern is whether you are just "cherry picking" the sources that reflect a point of view you already had before you started editing the article. I'm busy right now, and would prefer to avoid taking time to check this. But I invite you to examine the matter yourself. If you are indeed presenting a balanced viewpoint, then you can just disregard my expression of concern, it's me being a problem not you. You know what the actual situation is. If you are not presenting a balanced viewpoint, then I invite you to see if you can put any personal interests to one side and go back over the available sources, and see if you can produce something more dispassionate and balanced. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)