User talk:Ghhghghhgg

Sea Sheppard edits
Please keep in mind that articles on Wikipedia need to be backed up by reliable sources and reflect the general views of those sources. Forums and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Editors may have strong views about article subjects, but we've got to be careful not to allow those views to color the edits we make. Several of the edits you've made a contrary to what reliable sources say and your tone in general suggests you have very strong views on the subject. Also, article talk pages are there to improve the article, not as forums to discuss the subjects of the article. Thanks. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Im just stating the facts ones you dont there clearly.Ghhghghhgg (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Something else I need to warn you about is edit warring. Wikipedia has a strict policy on edit-warring that you can read on the WP:3RR page. Basically, if you go beyond three reverts of information in a 24 hour period, you will be blocked. In addition, edit-warring over a period of time without going over the 3 revert limit can also be grounds for being blocked from editing. Please use the article talk page to discuss changes that have been reverted by other editors, rather than trying to force in edits to which multiple other editors have objected. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Hello, I'm AussieLegend. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society seemed less than neutral to me, so it has been removed.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What have I edited that is not true? I have changed words to correctly define their actions, It has been disputed for over a year and nobody will fix it! They attack legal whalers, legal tuna farmers, destroy property, blow ships up risking lives. What have I said is not correct termonlogy? Doesnt the fact these criminal attacks are done against legal operations (not that breaking the law is acceptable even in the case of illegal activities? Why not state the fact they are attacking legal business? The arctile is written to make it seem like its illegal AND THE WHALES ARE NOT ENDANGERED! isnt that a fact that should be there? but thats not one they share :(Ghhghghhgg (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just out of interest why do you call yourself a legend?Ghhghghhgg (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ghhghghhgg. I wrote a good chunk of that article. We are supposed to write wihout bias but I will admit that I am far from being a fan of the organization. I thought it was assumed that sinking ships and the like was illegal so multiple modifiers don't seem necessary. In regards to endangerment, I was under the impression that one of the often hunted species (Minke?) was not on the list. Does it need clarity? I'm not seeing from a quick check that we detail that the species are endangered. If "species endangering" leads the reader to believe otherwise then it might need a quick fix. Your changes did seem a little too far and there is no need for caps lock on the talk pages or edit warring. It is all easily fixed as long as we do not promote one agenda or the other.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)