User talk:Jbailyn

Welcome!

Hello, Jbailyn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Harry Palmer (author) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Deconstructhis (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Palmer

Please learn how to use Wikipedia before making edits. You cannot place commentary on sources. Either you clean them up per the honest, scholastic guidelines used by WP, or they will be reverted by others, and rightfully so. Venus Copernicus (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your changes in more detail, some of they may be worthy of adding or integrating, but must cited properly. I recommend you use the Sandbox to experiemtn first and ask other editors to review and critique before making changes on public pages. Venus Copernicus (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Harry Palmer (author), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Harry Palmer (author). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Jusdafax 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm new. How can I challenge existing citations which I believe are out of context or from questionable sources Jbailyn (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC) jbailyn[reply]

Hello Jbailyn, the normal procedure for this sort of thing is to begin a discussion, laying out your concerns on the article's talk page.[1] This allows the opportunity for other editors to comment on the proposed changes. I strongly advise you not to continue to add or alter material, in the way you have been doing, before engaging in discussion with other editors; if you do so, you'll in all likelihood be blocked from further editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My advice

First, learn what are and are not questionable sources. I recommend going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Up to now, you seem to be basing your entire changes on extreme POV rather than adding THIRD PARTY reliable sources (hence the warnings). You are PERSONALLY putting all your faith in one source. in the real world, you can't just expect anyone objective to follow what a company/person claims. I agree some of the existing sources are weak, others are strong, and it is not up to you or someone else to call them "out of context" but for people to decide FOR THEMSELVES. Using a company's own literature is not acceptable unless it is used to represent their viewpoint and not evidence of a fact.

And please refrain from vilifying sources to discredit them. There is no place for that here, and for good reason. If you don't like what someone asserts, then find a credible counter-source. Seriously, attacking the sources personally for some "agenda" (which is the way you've undoubtedly been taught) has nothing to do with the merits of their research. In other words, don't shoot the messenger. And remember, if something is documented as having been said by someone, that does not mean what was said is true, but that it is true that it was said.

Personal Note - these last two paragraphs don't belong here and so I welcome you to delete them. I am writing it to benefit you personally as some things you should know before you go down the rabbit hole. It might not make your life more cheery, but it might change your life. (This isn't the place to debate Avatar itself, only the article, so I'll stick with one of the points in it.)

I can give you the name of the person who Palmer had edit out (most of) the Scientology terminology from the original materials back around 1990. The words you claim are being used as common dictionary uses is just plain false -- you will see you are rationalizing if you ask anyone outside of Avatar, especially if they've been in Scientology. The fundamental connection between them is only an opinion as to the matter of degree. But countless parallels are common knowledge, at least OUTSIDE Avatar (many documented here), except for the very few old-timers still around from back then. But they may not be honest about it if you ask them. Heck, they will probably make you look for "hidden agendas" just for doubting. You know that's how it works, right?

I also know someone who is making an extensive translation dictionary of Scientology-Avatar terminology with many dozens of identical words and concepts unique to Scientology and Avatar, not general common uses or religions in general. I suspect if this issue is removed from the article, they will be pressed to publish it as an acceptable source if necessary to make sure that fact stays documented in places like this. Listen, if you do real research on Palmer and Avatar outside Star's Edge, I question if you would even be eager to "fix" the article to your liking, since you'd find a lot out there that cannot logically be dismissed by your conditioning to label criticism against Avatar as a character flaw. I wish you the best though, and will help keep you honest either way.

Venus Copernicus (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]