User talk:Umn student

seems a good job on prof. carroll. Now keep it on your watchlist to se that people dont overwhelm it with propaganda. Feel free to ask me for help if needed DGG (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User Carniv
I noticed you had come across the above user pushing a lot of campaigning type vandalism, I was going to go and undo the various changes they've made, but I see you've already done so. I put a notice up on their talk page to tell them what wikipedia's NOT meant to be used for, but I think you've taken the right approach with undoing the edits. NathanLee 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

V, NOR, and NPOV
Hi Umn, just a word about the content policies (V, NOR, and NPOV). I've noticed you say in several places that sources can't be used if they're POV. For example, you've objected to using PETA as a source on Lobster Liberation Front. But that's not a correct interpretation of the policies, because ultimately all sources are POV in one way or another. What we need from sources is that they're in some way recognized as reliable in their subject area (by the public, or by reliable publishers, or by their peers i.e. other authorities on the subject), and that they're appropriate for the article (for example, PETA is clearly appropriate as a source in an article about an animal rights group). Both these issues &mdash; reliability and appropriateness &mdash; are judgment calls, especially the latter. But POV doesn't come into it, unless the POV is so extreme as to be unambiguously offensive or ridiculous, and/or is clearly tiny-minority. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you did a good job with the current version, better than the earlier ones by oth you and others--including myself. SV, quotes opposed to her work that are descriptive are not POV. Quotes intended to produce emotional reactions need to be used more carefully in context, or else they can be. DGG (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

University of Minnesota primate research
UMN, Slim has asked you on the talk page of the article if you edit WP using any other names. I advise you to address this quickly (in the negative, i hope) as sock-puppetry is a serious offense. Jmjanssen 23:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is negative, I've just been at class. Umn student 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That isn't to say there aren't very good reasons to use multiple accounts. A number of the articles you've edited have been controversial, for whatever reason, and you may want to prevent this from spilling over onto other articles, attacks on various internet sites, etc. John Nevard 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I kept that in mind when I made this one. I've used Mediawiki a lot, just haven't edited wikipedia before this. Thanks for the comments! Umn student 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It never helps to assume bias. If there is any, it will speak for itself. Just discuss the actual article.DGG (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's rather amusing SlimVirgin is asking that. How about you ask her the same thing. Background: She's been found guilty of that in the past (to double vote on something). This all sounds very familiar. She made similar accusations on another animal rights related page. NathanLee (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It almost never helps, right or wrong, to accuse anyone of bias. Anyone biased will make it obvious. Getting into a meta-argument about people's motives never leads to anything but bad feelings--I have never seen it produce an improvement in an article, but I have often seen it destroy a potentially good one. the only way to edit topics like this is a cold-blooded objectivity about the actual article.   DGG (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why I never brought it up, Slim did. 75.168.17.152 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign in - Umn student (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC))