Talk:Luna (orca)/Archive 1

Untitled

No disrespect intended to the whale in question, but is he really notable enough for the encyclopedia?--Dell Adams 02:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right, then. Dell Adams (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI - December 2009

I am glad you placed the COI tag on this article, Clayoquot - I had wondered about the edits possibly being COI, but am currently embroiled in other things in Wikipedia that kept me from doing further investigation. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the moral support :) I'm having that tl;dr feeling too! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clayoquot et al... I am NOT a regular editor or contributor to Wikipedia, but I am confused about this "Conflict of Interest" tag on my contributions to this entry on the orca Luna, or L98. I was not involved in any way in the Luna effort/crisis, but like a lot of people in the Pacific Northwest had a great interest in the matter and kept an extensive file of television and print media coverage. Upon reading the original entry on Luna, I found it grossly incomplete, particularly as it regarded the critical participation of non-government organizations like OrcaLab and Orca Conservancy -- both of which incidentally I am not a member or donor. I simply felt compelled to complete the entry and to edit inaccurate information. And all of my contributed material is verifiable and in almost every case accompanied by citations of corresponding media sources. As I am new to Wiki, I do not know how to address this flag for alleged COI other than to try to clarify my role in editing this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrjoshuawells (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 December 2009

Hi, Joshua. Since Clayoquot is the one who placed the COI tag there, I'll allow him/her to comment on the reasons for the tag. Try not to be alarmed nor take the COI tag as a personal criticism. It's really not anything more than a precaution and a flag that basically says the possibility of COI needs to be examined. Just relax, and I'm sure Clayoquot will be more than willing to answer your questions in time. Have a great day. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I just got back from a two-day trip. I've left a note at Talk:Springer (orca) to explain the COI concerns. I'd like to request that the discussion on COI be continued over there, just so that the discussion isn't split into two pages. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I've read Clayoquot's comments on the Springer talk page and it makes a lot of sense now. As I said, all this Wikipedia stuff is new to me, but I'm learning fast! I hope the comments I made in response have helped clarify things. I've also tried to revisit both articles and make some corrections in hopes of moving closer to consensus and removing the COI flag. But I'm open to further direction from all of you. Thanks, and Happy New Year! Mrjoshuawells (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More POV pushing?

I am suspicious of the new activity in this article by a new, and possibly POV-motivated editor, LunaFriend. Any editors want to comment? LunaFriend, would you care to comment about your recent, huge changes to this article? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SkagitRiverQueen, no need to be suspicious - there were numerous factual errors in the article (including but not limited to spelling errors, incorrect dates, the fate of Luna's body, his experience with the General Jackson, the organization which held the naming contest, the timing of Luna's arrival in Nootka Sound, the timing of the First Nations' naming of Tsu'xiit, the timing of Luna's interest in boats, etc.) and I corrected them. I also provided supplemental information that was missing in the original article. My changes weren't actually "huge" but I did fix the mistakes I saw.

About my qualifications to comment on this and change things: I am at work on a book about Luna, under contract with a respected publisher. Related to that book research, I have read over 8000 pages of Luna-related government documents retrieved through access to information procedures, reviewed hundreds of hours of Luna video footage including that produced by government agencies, NGOs and private individuals, interviewed dozens of people including the key players in Luna's story, and spent years on Nootka Sound. So I am pretty familiar with the facts.

Full disclosure: I was cited in the previous Wikipedia entry, but that should not prevent me from providing accurate information, and it doesn't make me a POV-motivated editor. In fact, there were misleading factual statements about my profession, nationality, and other "facts" about me. I believe that nobody is in a better position to know those facts than myself. So I fixed them. I also added some content to the entry - the previous article lacked details of Luna's circumstances in Nootka Sound in the second half of 2004 and 2005, and 2006. Hope this is helpful.

LunaFriend (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being honest. The biggest problem with what you said above, however, is that there may a big problem with conflict of interest as well as a possible problem with pushing a POV and not being NPOV - especially if you are writing a book about Luna. I'd like to get some other editor's opinions on this to see if I'm looking at this correctly from the standpoint of COI and POV and, as time permits, may ask some other editors to drop by and give their opinions. The other problem here is that everything you've added has to be referenced. So therein lies another problem - I'm pretty certain you can't point to your own work on the subject when it's published (because of conflict of interest and POV), and I know you can't add it now (without it being yet published and citable), as it will be considered original research. This might be a bit of a "sticky-wicket" (which is also the name of a great pub in Victoria, BC, by the way ;-) For the time being, I'm going to once again revert your edits - because of the above concerns I listed, not in the spirit of edit-warring. Please don't take the revert personal - it's not personal. And don't worry, everything you did is still there as part of the WP record and can be reverted in total when and if there is a consensus on how this whole thing should be decided. I ask you to be patient and not give up. Fair enough? Your interest in the article is certainly appreciated - this article has been picked over and modified to death over the last year or so and could certainly use some new eyes and suggestions. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SkagitRiverQueen, unfortunately, there were still lots of errors in the version you reverted to, and I don't think that's doing anyone a service. So I have further edited the section and updated it, and provided some references. I appreciate that this is nothing personal - it's just important that readers don't get inaccurate information. It's interesting that the article has been "picked over the death" - it is still fairly incomplete in its scope, and most of the quotes are attributed to a single individual. I will try to continue to update it, and add more references as appropriate. If anyone thinks that there is a conflict of interest for me to correct factual errors about my nationality, profession, time spent in Nootka Sound, and documented material that has been broadcast internationally, I would be happy to discuss it further. Please, may I ask that you don't revert again to the inaccurate version, which is full of factual errors? If you insist on reverting to the old version, can I ask that we delete all inaccurate references? It's not productive for anyone to be reading stuff that's simply false. Thanks for your interest and your understanding. LunaFriend (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LunaFriend - you need to understand that when you edit in Wikipedia that there are rules, guidelines and standards to which you must adhere. Wikipedia is not a personal website where you can write and do what you want, when you want. That being said, your interest in improving this article is great and it's always good to add another editor to the project. But do keep in mind, that when veteran editors tell you that you need to dial it back a bit and that you may be treading on ground where you are possibily violating Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and standards, it is important you listen. I gave you a number of article redirects in my previous message to you - it seems that if you read them at all, you have completely ignored them. One such rule you need to be very familiar with immediately is the 3RR rule. Please click on the highlighted link to 3RR and read and familiarize yourself with it. Violating 3RR can get you blocked from editing for a period of time. Continually violating 3RR can get you blocked for more extended periods of time, and so on. I am advising you right now to not violate 3RR by making any more reverts or changes to the article within the next 24 hours. If you do, you probably won't like the results. I'm sure you can add much to this article, but as you have already been notified on your own talk page, there is a major concern over whether or not you have a conflict of interest. I warned you about this earlier today - you seemed to ignore that, as well. Now - you seem to be concerned with those who may read the article and getting the "wrong" information. Once again, if you don't reference what you are putting in the article, it's not good information, and fails the Wikipedia guidelines for material that can be added. What's more, another good thing to remember about Wikipedia is that there is no deadline. The world will not stop spinning and there will be no dire consequences if someone reads the article and gets information that you think is incorrect.

Last, and certainly not at all least, your reverts after being asked to not revert are much more unproductive and disruptive to the editing process than keeping the article the way it was. Until we get other editors here on the article talk page to discuss the possibility of conflict of interest and original research, you really do need to stop editing this article. Pushing forward after being informed you need to stop doesn't look good for you - especially as a new editor - but reverting everything back looks even worse. Please don't continue down the road you are on - I don't want to see you get blocked, and I'm pretty sure you don't *want* to get blocked from editing.

As it is, the article is now going to have a COI template placed on it - hopefully, that will get others in here to comment and help out with getting everything straightened out and in order the Wikipedia way that benefits editors and readers alike. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SkagitRiverQueen - I am brand-new to editing wikipedia (yesterday was the first time I have edited), so please accept my apologies if I have done something wrong here by reverting/ re-editing the article. (I am not new, however, to a rigorous fact-checking process; my professional experience includes years of work on numerous National Geographic magazine articles, in which I participated in their rigid fact-checking process.) I read the original article and I was appalled by the numerous errors and misrepresentations, so I am trying to fix them. I am actually not familiar with the 3RR rule, and please be assured that nothing I did yesterday was meant to be disrespectful to you or the wiki process. The article had a lot of mistakes, so I wanted to start to fix them. Even after the changes I made, it is still significantly incomplete. It only presents some of the relevant facts on Luna's life, and it contains significant distortions. I am happy to have objective editors comment on whether it is a COI for me to correct information which is obviously wrong, including incorrect personal information about me that was previously presented by someone else. Another example of an error: someone else had posted completely wrong information about what happened to Luna's body, so I fixed that, too. The article contains unsubstantiated claims and opinions by a previous editor, so I am not surprised that it was flagged in December 2009 as having a possible COI.

Anyway, I very much want to follow the wiki guidelines and move forward in a productive way. Based on all my research on Luna, I know that I can contribute positively to this article. I hope that anyone who reads this thread understands that I am acting in good faith to correct someone else's mistakes, and fill in the gaps.

Thanks for your tips - I won't edit it again until others have had a go at it. In the meantime, I will continue to familiarize myself with the wiki editing process. Thanks for your patience! LunaFriend (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]