User talk:IBeatAnorexia/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. — coe l acan t a lk  — 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PETA edits
Hi IBeatAnorexia, I reverted the edits you made to PETA. Basically, your edits were largely opinion, which is not permitted under WP:NPOV. We're writing encyclopedia articles, not giving personal opinions about what things look like, or the impact they might have had. Your edits included: The reason that Coelacan gave you a vandalism warning is because you returned the exact same text to the article without discussing on the talk page. After you read and understand WP:NPOV, please read WP:DISPUTE to get a sense of how to handle disputes about content. Basically, if you make a change and someone else undoes it, you should raise the issue on the talk page -- Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- rather than making the change over & over. You won't get the change the way you want just by making it without explanation or discussion, because other people will just take it out. Rather, you need to engage with the other editors on the talk page, and explain what you think is missing, and ask for help in figuring out ways to address the problem that you observed. You may find that other people do not agree with your assessment of the problem, and sometimes you just have to give in with good grace.
 * changing "naked PETA activists" to "PETA activists strip themselves and streak the neighborhood". This is a wordier and redundant version of the original, so just as a matter of copy-editing, the original was better.
 * adding "damaging the innocence and sense of judgement of minors that mishappenly watch." - Aside from grammar, spelling, & style issues, the main problem with this is that it violates neutral point of view. There are no citations to published research showing that the action damages "innocence" or "sense of judgement" and it's not even clear what that might mean, nor why such putative harms would be visited only on minors that "mishappenly" watch as opposed to minors that intentionally watch or adults that accidentally see.  (And "watch" implies sustained attention, which is not something that would really be accidental.)
 * And you add "making it look like a police bust in a massive orgy." which is just a completely extraneous opinion about the appearance of the incident.

I hope that you read through these comments and the linked policies, consider experimenting and working with wikipedia to understand the process and goals of the project, and that your future interactions are more productive. --lquilter 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Austin sumner
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.  Jammy Simpson |  Talk  | 15:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning
IBA, your brief contributions history is full of inappropriate editing, personal attacks, quasi-vandalism or vandalism, and now creating a page with no reliable sources that fails to assert the notability of the subject. I have to warn you that you're at risk of being blocked for disruption. Please review the content policies carefully &mdash; WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV &mdash; and make sure your edits adhere to them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

PETA
I see you have been unsuccessfully trying to edit PETA. You might want to look at what those people are doing to Zoo. Famey415 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)