User talk:SWF Senior Trainer

Thank you for experimenting with the page Katina (whale) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -FisherQueen 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Katina (whale). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
The warning you used doesn't go on an article page. -- ArglebargleIV 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your response over at Talk:Katina (whale). -- ArglebargleIV 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA request

Vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV. The AMA is for content disputes, not vandalism. Thanks for your efforts to stop this guy. \/\/slack (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to User talk:24.147.72.135

You placed a {{vandalblock}} on this user's talkpage. Adding such templates do not cause the user to be blocked, only administrators can do that. Vandalism is to be reported to WP:AIV after the vandal has received a proper set of warnings. Regards,--Hús ö nd 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kohana

You put in your edit summary "You can NOT add speculations or rumors to Wikipedia! Only facts backed by reliable sources maybe added! STOP EDITING OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED!!!" There might have been a better way to handle this, such as going to the user's talk page who made that edit, and politely telling them that rumors and speculations aren't allowed on Wikipedia. But, please adhere to Wikipedia's no personal attack policy. Also, you came very close to breaking the 3 revert rule.

I do, however, appreciate a person who dedicates their time to fighting vandals, and cleaning up articles, so, instead of reporting you to the Admin Noticeboard, consider this a 'friendly reminder'.

Thank you,

Tyson Moore es 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Feel free to Leave me a response.[reply]

About the asterisks

Hm. Unfortunately, although that may be the standard at SeaWorld and/or through the orca research community, nobody else who reads the article on SeaWorld's orcas will know what the asterisks means. However, somehow marking which ones are deceased is a good idea.

Take a look at Kalina (whale) -- I added a references section (at the bottom, but above the category section), and replaced the asterisks by reference tags. The first one and the following ones are different -- I'll explain in further detail shortly, but I have to run. Anyway, what do you think? -- ArglebargleIV 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be aware of this

Wikipedia has a Conflict of interest guideline that actively discourages people from editing articles related to themselves, their organizations (or competitors), or projects or products that they are involved in. You've stated in this edit here [1] that you are a trainer at Sea World. If this is true, then perhaps you should recuse yourself from articles involving your employer.

It is very important that any information being added to the encyclopedia includes references to reliable sources. Original research (e.g., things you know or you ask someone directly about) is not acceptable, in accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy. I hope you find this helpful. Risker 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said about how one can tell the sex of an orca is probably true (I'm not going to research it, and I will certainly take your word for it). However, without a reliable source (i.e., not you) confirming that the calf is indeed female (or even that it has the markings of a female), that "fact" cannot yet be put into the article. At best, it could be put in followed by a {{cite}} tag after it, since this is an important statement in the article. Your personal observations are considered original research. Risker 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand how convoluted the whole "original research" thing can be. There is even debate amongst our science editors whether or not published papers that first explain a new theory are primary sources - and hence original research. As I understood the position, it is only after another researcher has been able to duplicate results and published their findings that it becomes a secondary (and thus reliable) source. In any case, welcome to Wikipedia; I suppose tonight has been a bit rough, but I suspect most of us have gone through a bit of a "baptism of fire" at some point in our editing careers. Risker 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tilikum (orca)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tilikum (orca). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilikum (orca). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]