User talk:Seedcollector

Welcome!

 * }

April 2012
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
And someone else just removed the remaining two Fukushima-related links 71.234.211.99 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph
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: Five pillars; WP:POLICYLIST (not all of them, of course); WP:NVC; WP:COI; Restoring part of a reverted edit; WP:EXCEPTIONAL; WP:WORKINPROGRESS; What Wikipedia is not; 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)