Please read Wikipeida's style guide and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Your recent edits were a series of headlines put in out of sequence in the article. New info does not get prominence (see WP:RECENTISM). You also duplicated information and did not use proper inline citation formatting. Wikipedia:Your first article might help. Cptnono ( talk) 04:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You just did it again. PLease read the recentism and manual of style links above and make requests on the tlak page until you are up to speed. Thanks. Cptnono ( talk) 04:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, it looks like you are only interested in the contraversey of the subjecy and are disregarding the other aspects of the subject from your comments on the talk page. Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.04:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Will read through these guides. Still relatively new to Wikipedia and haven't seen all of this. Thanks. Cetamata ( talk) 04:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, there is a ton of information to cover and I can only research and type so fast. So I won't be able to simply update on every subject at once. Thanks again. Cetamata ( talk) 04:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that might be the problem. You are biting a whole lot off. Kepe in mind that it doesn't need to happen right now. If it takes a few days to get the info in then it takes a few days. I already assume that we are not going to agree on everything since it appears that we have conflicting views so I promise to try to work with you and not against you.

Also, Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style is a huge help. Try to use formatting or templates instead of bare urls. This is a real pain in the ass os if you don't get that part right away don't worry too much. Cptnono ( talk) 05:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the heads up. The way I look at this subject on wikipedia is this is definitely not a platform to argue about any aspect of whaling. As far as I'm concerned the facts can speak for themselves. The problem is just the overwhelming wealth of data, finding what's relevant and presenting it so it's acceptable to everyone and suitably objective. The other problem is there is not a lot of seemingly objective source material. Not because every article is biased for or against. More because every article is argued over so the impression often seems combative. Believe me, I don't plan on typing up any "the Japanese are murderers" or "the Sea Shepherds are terrorists" comments into it. I've collected a number of books on the subject and it's not going to be easy to condense all of the controversy. Cetamata ( talk) 05:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I was thinking about it probably the first thing for you to look at is the layout guidelines jst to make sure stuf is going in the right place. The whole weight and recentism thing mentioned above is important just because of that huge amount of new info that you mentioned. There is a long history of whaling so it would be a problem if only events of the last 2 years got added. So just watch out for that. Alot of stuff doesn't need "balancing" if the wording and sources are done in an encyclopedic tone instead of news. Your prose were actually neuteral enough (I think the only things I cut was a duplicate mention of SSCS and something about Australian and NZ whaling since it didn't seem related). WP:NPOV will make it better if you haven't had a chance to go over it. After thinking about it, you really aren't expected to be perfect with the MoS. Cptnono ( talk) 06:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Please stop adding so much to the Whaling in Japan page. This is not the place for all that info, the page is already overstuffed and needs editing. At least two other editors have asked you to be more careful, above and in the talk pages. PrBeacon ( talk) 08:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please show me the Wikipedia standard that says don't add more information to Wikipedia? I thought this was supposed to be a living document, Encyclopedia of everything. Cetamata ( talk) 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Cptnono has already provided links above to several policy pages, including WP:What Wikipedia is not -- "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Please see the talk page for further reply. And thank you for stopping. Perhaps you could work on other pages and give this one a rest, give others a chance to work on it. PrBeacon ( talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Also presented in the WIJ discussion -

1) 90% of the contributions I've made to this page are about the HISTORY of Japanese whaling. Not arbitrary bits of information as described in Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not lyrics databases, or excessive statistics, or plot descriptions, or 30 news reports on the same topic.

2) 90% of the contributions I've made to this page are about HISTORY - The only place I've mentioned controversy specifically has been in this discussion page and that's primarily because the controversy/opposition portion of the article has been lacking/poorly organized at times.

3) I was gigged by cptnono and swift for "recentism" when I added information about recent and significant events at the top of the page - since then I haven't touched current events so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop referring to that one incident as if it's an ongoing problem.

4) I've taken great pains to present historically accurate information without adding in undue weight to anti-whaling or pro-whaling groups. However, in many cases the facts may be viewed unfavorable from one perspective or another. That's not my fault. I can't account for every subjective viewpoint in reciting information about this subject. If you think there is some undue weight then discuss it properly and specifically in the talk page instead of making a blanket accusation of bias. Cetamata ( talk) 03:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I hear you. I haven't gone over it much lately but it looks like the concern is the shear mount of information related to modern (relative) whaling. The article is actually OK size wise so it is more of a balance and prominence issue. Basically, the whole article may not be bloated but certain sections might be. It is obvious that you are working to adhere to standards so nice work on that. Look into adding info not related to the contraventions or trimming or consolidating some of it. Cptnono ( talk) 01:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

If anybody can find an equal amount of information on Japanese whaling from the 12th - 17th century I'll be shocked. Everything I've read (other than little anecdotes like once upon a time a ruler declared killing mammals was illegal -against religious principles- so "the people" turned on whales in the isolated fishing communities that hunted them) pretty much shows nothing about Japanese whaling prior to the 1600s and not much in the way of changes from the 1600s until the 1890s. How many different ways can you say, "the same guys with the same wooden boats and the same hand-held harpoons killed the same whales for a few centuries"? Cetamata ( talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not misrepresent the situation or bypass the normal channels of dispute resolution. This is how I and others see it: You are the one who in fact ignored the talk page discussion by repeatedly changing the article (over the past few months) to suit your POV. Then you reverted my edits after I changed them back. So I warned you about 3RR [1] which you mistakenly thought was a formal report, so you retaliated at the Admin noticeboard, incorrectly, and deleted the warning, which is disingenous at best. Instead of attempting to reach a resolution, you seem to be digging in & making things worse. PrBeacon ( talk) 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Wrong. I'm not the one re-reverting my own edits to suit a POV. Despite the noted objections in the talk pages you proceeded to continue making changes without a consensus. There's disagreement over two primary changes that you continue to push for. Including the use of specific wording within the text of the article as well as subject titles.

The fact that you decided to drop a threat over two specific "undo" actions on my talk page, instead of trying to resolve the dispute in the WIJ discussion first, is evidence that you were going to move forward with changes regardless of any objections which is not how disputes are resolved on Wikipedia. Hence you were reported and now the article is locked until the dispute is resolved. Cetamata ( talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

How would you know "how disputes are resolved"? Apparently, policy pages are "arbitrary" and don't apply to you, talk pages are only there to support your worldview, archived discussions and related articles aren't worthy of consideration, and a common template warning is a "threat." PrBeacon ( talk) 06:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This is obviously not an attempt to resolve the dispute. Perhaps you're the one who needs to review policies. Cetamata ( talk) 06:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Since you missed it, the point is that you are the one refusing to compromise. And I have read the policies, I'm not the one making false reports and arguing blindly. Here's an informal guideline some of us like: WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrBeacon ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That is actually an essay and not a guideline. It is much less binding. Much like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that I mentioned earlier. We all need to relax since PrB needs to try a little harder to comment on content and not on the contributor and Cetamata and I need to make sure we are following neutrality standards. Cptnono ( talk) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This is BS and it's proof positive of why people should just go to a library. I'm done. Cetamata ( talk) 09:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As Cptnono knows by now, my argumentative style may often be less diplomatic than some. And I think its reasonable to call out motives and reasons behind the edits, I dont consider those personal attacks. These balance issues also spill over from other articles, imo, most notably SSCS. Regardless, no regular editor likes to be reverted so quickly, and you did it twice, saying only there is no consensus. As I see it, the situation degraded from there. PrBeacon ( talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I did NOT say there was no consensus. If you'll look at my reverts of your changes, the reason is stated clearly "because this change asserted bias by implying research whaling is invalid (ie: just a claim)". It became a matter of consensus when you sent me a warning and restored your edits instead of discussing the changes. Cetamata ( talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, I responded to your edit. It appear that you are fairly new. It is a newspaper which assert the existence of opposition from scientist in anti whaling countries on ethical ground. Some might find such reporting to be biased but it is not for us in wikipedia to judge that. We merely report what is written in media and academia. For example, I find the reasoning by Dr. Nick Gales to be faulty. He fail to see that population decrease of whale in the past is from whaling and not from the lack of food. Therefore, recovery of population from moratorium and reduction in fat from reduction in marine fish stock are both logically consistent. However, since this would be my POV, I'm not allow to put that in the edit. On the other hand, one is not allowed to censor information stated in media or academia. Vapour ( talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Vapour, I understand your concern. That's why I quoted two qualitative sources. Once scientist stated he believed the paper was first rejected for political reasons. The other said it was rejected for other reasons. Anything more would be pouring on bias. For example, I'll bet a large number of quotes from conservation groups could be found in various news publications. They share the same POV but they are ideologically oriented against the results and that doesn't make each quote more evidence against the paper. Better to summarize as "conservation groups criticized the study and its publication" rather than add bias by including a quote from every opposing source individually. Cetamata ( talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I left a better explanation on the discussion page. Cetamata ( talk) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What's been completely counterproductive is the level of animosity regarding recent disputes displayed by PrBeacon. I'm neither pro-whaling, nor pushing a POV nor using any WP policies to justify a particular world view. (among other allegations made)

Anyone unfamiliar with the disputes and the article should review the differences between this article prior to my contributions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Whaling_in_Japan&diff=314880101&oldid=314880089

...and the current version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Whaling_in_Japan&diff=345836939&oldid=345829565

In my contributions to the article, regardless of the debate in the discussion page, I've included factual information complete with citations primarily regarding the history of Japanese whaling. In this information I've included events and facts that, in my opinion, do not all reflect well on Japan including the exploitation of endangered species and acts in contradiction to international regulations such as pirate whaling among other things. Like my use of terms such as "take" this is not done to morally affirm or denounce Japanese whaling. It's done to add factual information on this topic to the article in a neutral manner.

If every word in the Whaling in Japan article is going to be a battle (such as PrBeacon's vendetta to see the word kill appear at least 32 times in the text because "take" is supposedly an industry term to hide the "bad" aspects of whaling) rather than a discussion, exactly how is a neutrality dispute over content ever going to be resolved? Cetamata ( talk) 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

For what its worth, I think you're taking things too personally. We're discussing edits and arguments. And I'm not the only one disputing some of your contributions, just the most recent and perhaps most vocal. I'm also not one to coddle. More on talk page... PrBeacon ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Right, because waging a one man PR campaign to attack the integrity of another editor is OK. Implying every edit he's made in the last year is part of a sinister plot to distort the contents of Wikipedia in favor of his morally questionable opinions is OK. It's just another form of reasonable debate. Sarcasm Cetamata ( talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well I will coddle some here. Someone should have thanked you for the effort you put into expanding the article Cetamata. I still believe there is too much in certain sections but that can be fixed by adding more to other sections or consolidating. That also should not be solely your responsibility. I also have no idea where you stand on the issue. I assumed you were against whaling with your focus on the controversy. I honestly can't tell and that is a sign of neutrality. Nice work. So yes, there has been some heated discussion, some reverts, and some concerns over multiple editors contributions. When it all comes down to it, you at least deserve some credit for the work you have put in. And again, we need to not be jerky to eachother. Cptnono ( talk) 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You should at least apologize for the jerk comment. It is bad form to ask someone to but I think it is necessary. It might be cause for PrB to rethink some of his comments and then we can put the civility issue to rest. Cptnono ( talk) 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

(I'll think about it - and for the record, I'm also not a bully.)

---Do not continue to post in my talk page PrBeacon. Your input is unwanted. If you want to discuss the dispute in WIJ then discuss it in the WIJ discussion page.--- Cetamata ( talk) 07:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Cptnono, what's the difference between calling someone a "Pro-Whaling POV Pushing Bully" on 4-5 different Wiki's and calling someone a "Jerk" on one page? Cetamata ( talk) 07:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

They both suck. I made a mention on his page as well. We all screw up or vent to hard when pushed or pissed off so don't worry about it too much. If both of you can acknowledge it and try to watch out fr it the future it would be awesome You aren't obligated to though Cptnono ( talk) 07:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

But only one actually happened. Get your facts straight, C: only in my private user-talkpage, which you & others are free to ignore, I referred to you as a bully for your escalation of the conflict. You used the derogatory remark in a public talk page. PrBeacon ( talk) 09:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I didn't start adding to Wikipedia to get into flame wars over whaling. There are plenty of forums out there for that BS. I can at least say it won't happen again because it is indeed pointless. Cetamata ( talk) 07:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

At this point I'd prefer a 3rd party step in and just make the damn decision already so we can unlock the page and move on. Cetamata ( talk) 07:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I haven’t checked the article yet, but would it be reasonable for somebody to copy your contributions to the article's talk page to discuss point-by-point? It would take some of the load off your back and it’ll last longer on a talk page then it will in an article with someone like PrBeacon lurking. —  NRen2k5^{( TALK)}, 08:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that PrBeacon has a history of this type of disruption? Cetamata ( talk) 10:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know what you are trying to do below. I already made a mention at PrBs page. He has edit warred over two pages and made multiple inappropriate remarks on his talk page (POV pushers, blowhard) and the talk page (again the POV pushing). He is pretty much forum shopping. He also has a history of being offensive and edit warring. I've seen him actually be great before so hopefully he will keep on doing it that way instead. However, the next step over the line is going to be a noticeboard from me if someone does not do it first or if he isn't blocked for his editwarring at fishing. You should relax. You busted your butt improving the article for the most part (I still think it needs to be adjusted to a certain extent) and need to make sure you don't cross the line any further. Cptnono ( talk) 11:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It was a really late night... Understood. Cetamata ( talk) 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I hope "late night" means the same thing to you as it does to me (fing smashed). Don't worry at all about it whatever the reason. You have kept your cool for the most part when faced with a good amount of criticism. Cptnono ( talk) 08:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

My Thoughts

You need only look at the timeline below to see how this happened. PrBeacon looked over the Whaling in Japan page and made a decision based on his personal opinions. He decided the article was biased toward the Japanese whaling industry (not anti-whaling enough). He then decided to focus on me as one of the largest contributing editors over the last year. He also decided for himself that the language I used was not anti-whaling enough.

He changed the title "Scientific Research" to "Claims of Research" and "Research Whaling" to "Claims of Research" because of his opinion that any research conducted by the whaling industry is flawed and a disguise for commercial whaling - in other words his POV.

I reverted this and attempted to discuss the change and offered alternatives. In response I was threatened and he restored his changes and went on to continue editing without discussion. I reported him for this.

PrBeacon also changed up to 24 instances of the text including words like "take" to "kill" or "catch and kill". (not kidding, the word kill appeared 8 times before and 32 times after) Once again this is because of his opinion that the word "take" was not anti-whaling enough. He called it an industry term and basically wanted it stricken from the page without further discussion and thats what he proceeded to do.

Cptnono reverted his changes. Then the page was locked as a result of the report.

Since this began, PrBeacon has continued to make allegations that I'm pro-whaling, pushing my POV, using Wikipedia policies to justify my world view, and now he's calling me a bully and inventing conspiracy theories about me. It seems to me that PrBeacon is the one who has basically bullied his way into a disagreement over his unilateral decision to make the "whaling in japan" page an "anti-whaling in japan" page instead of a neutral article. He even claims I went through the article and removed the word kill to replace it repeatedly with take. Yet the history of my edits to the article show no such behavior. Another assumption based on his opinion turned into an accusation of impropriety. Cetamata ( talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Bullying Principal Editors

Here is something interesting that may be relevant (though, I don't know if I can be called a principal editor):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bully

"On the other hand, there are bullying editors who have not exerted themselves to the point where they could be called the principal editor of any significant article. Some of these editors ruthlessly attack editors who are the principal editor of an article and have done the hard yards, accusing them of "ownership", insisting that their own ill-considered contributions take precedence." Cetamata ( talk) 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

PrBeacon Comments:

• And I didnt say anything about the pro- or anti- sections, because you've been crafty enough to avoid them. Bulking up the sections on "research" may be a more clever way to push POV, but it still stinks

• Your early defense of using the industry euphemism "take" as a verb for killing/slaughtering whales is another suspicious example.

• Because since September 2009 you've stuffed this article with bogus research and industry doublespeak, claimed naivete about wiki policies until and unless they serve your purposes, reverted other editors attempting to restore balance, and argued your worldview with anyone who's bothered to join the discussion.

• And how many times did your edits replace the word "kill" or "slaughter" with "take" or "catch"

• Over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV

• This is how I and others see it: over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV

• Have you asked yourself yet Why is he so eager/adamant about the page being unlocked? Why has he only worked on Whaling in Japan? Sometimes I wonder if he is a sockpuppet

( Is bullying the principal editor an accurate charge? Cetamata ( talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) ) reply

• 08:03, 23 February 2010 NJA Page Locked
• 06:52, 23 February 2010 PrBeacon removes "take" from intro
• 06:43, 23 February 2010 Cptnono reverts PrBeacon changes per WP:BRD

• Some discussion about both disputes occurs

• 23:19, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon continues removing "take" and "catch"
• 23:15, 22 February 2010 Cptnono talks about "take"
• 23:13, 22 February 2010 Hans Adler talks about titles & explains warning template
• 23:10, 22 February 2010 Cetamata talks about "take"
• 23:08, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon talks about "take"
• 23:02, 22 February 2010 Cetamata complains about titles
• 22:59, 22 February 2010 Cptnono talks about "take"
• 22:59, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon continues removing "take" and "catch"
• 22:52, 22 February 2010 Hans Adler states he doesn't see a report filed by PrBeacon

• 22:52, 22 February 2010 Cetamata Reports PrBeacon
• 22:50, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon talks about "take"
• 22:45, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon talks about "take"
• 22:44, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon talks about "take"
• 22:40, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon begins removing "take" and "catch"
• 22:29, 22 February 2010 Cetamata complains about titles
• 22:28, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon talks about "take"
• 22:23, 22 February 2010 Hans Adler comments on titles
• 22:21, 22 February 2010 Cetamata complains about titles
• 22:20, 22 February 2010 Cetamata complains about titles

• 22:13, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Restores his title change edit
• 22:12, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Restores his title change edit
• 22:09, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Posts "you will be reported for edit warring" template on Cetamata's talk - mistaken for actual report
• 22:04, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Says equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong" in WIJ discussion about titles
• 21:57, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Accuses Cetamata of POV push in discussion page about article size
• 21:57, 22 February 2010 Cetamata Suggests alternate titles in discussion page
• 21:41, 22 February 2010 Cetamata Creates section in WIJ discussion page regarding title change
• 21:39, 22 February 2010 Cetamata Undoes section title change
• 21:35, 22 February 2010 Cetamata Undoes section title change
• 21:34, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Changes section title
• 21:30, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Changes section title
• 21:21, 22 February 2010 PrBeacon Tells Ingolfson the neutrality dispute is not resolved

From PrBeacon:

"For the record, Cetamata is misrepresenting the situation and bypassing the normal channels of dispute resolution. This is how I and others see it: over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV, including the euphemisms "take" and "catch" as well as bogus research claims, while ignoring disagreements about these terms on the talk page and paying lip service to WP policies. Most recently, after I changed the terms back, he reverted my edits. So I warned him about 3RR which he mistakenly thought was a formal report, yet he deleted it. He then retaliated at the Admin noticeboard. Instead of attempting to reach a resolution"

Should we match this description of the events up with the timeline?

From my report of PrBeacon:

"Rather than attempting to resolve the issue in the discussion page this user proceeded to begin an edit war by re-reverting back to his recent undone changes and reported me without any prior discussion or attempt at dispute resolution." -Cetamata

Now how does this match up with the timeline?

Cetamata ( talk) 10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

So this is way delayed. I did not notice the pint on my talk page until a few minutes ago. I know you were super stressed and saw that you were not going to be active. I did see your name pop up a week or so ago on my watchlist so hope you are at least not to pissed off. Regardless, it is almost criminal where I am from to not cheers or repay the favor. Best wishes to you if you are off of Wikipedia. Cheers (drinking a Redhook ESB as I type this)

Cptnono ( talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{ subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cptnono ( talk) 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hahah, no worries man. I've just been doing source-research for another article and checking the WIJ talk page from time to time. Hope you enjoyed St. Patty's Day. Cheers. :-) Cetamata ( talk) 05:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I hear you. The only suggestion I have is being more assertive. Send them a message saying "hey use the talk page instead of edit summaries". Many editors are just poking around and assume a discussion isn't needed since they assume their changes are correct. A quick friendly note might be all it takes. Of course if the other editor starts reverting try asking for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion or opening an Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I have to say I completely agree with you here. The sources lump them together and they are all related. This really shouldn't be a question as far as I can tell. Cptnono ( talk) 17:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Whaling only includes the hunting of baleen whales, the sperm whale, and a few of the larger species of beaked whales. Seeing as how pilot whales are in the dolphin family, they should NOT be included in a page on whaling in Iceland. And please, none of that "all cetaceans are whales" nonsense. The definition becomes useless when you state it that way.

All dolphins and porpoises are toothed whales (similar to the sperm whale). They may be small cetaceans but they are cetaceans and the fact was cited in the text "Men and Whales" for a reason. Cetamata ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

And Roys's whaling was more akin to open-boat American whaling in general during that period, as they both used explosive projectiles (depending on the species and region, of course). The way he processed the oil differed somewhat, but it was still open-boat whaling in every sense of the term. They weren't using modern catcher boats with harpoon guns mounted on their bows but simply towing some whaleboats behind steamers- steamers which didn't actually DO any of the catching. How exactly is that modern? Jonas Poole ( talk) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It's modern whaling in that it doesn't involve rowing boats after whales with hand thrown harpoons. It used "modern" technology. (ie: rocket harpoon). Are you now going to change "modern whaling" to "Norwegian Whaling"? Cetamata ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why this is a concern. The sources discuss them together and they are related industry wise and biologically. Pilot whales should be in. Cptnono ( talk) 17:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

God, you people are fucking idiots. Roys's efforts were a transitional phase. The only reason he is mentioned in books on modern whaling is because it was a transitional phase between open-boat whaling (which it still was, seeing as how they USED open boats to fire the harpoons) and modern whaling (which USED steam catchers with harpoon guns MOUNTED at the bows).

And the hunting of fucking pilot whales is DOLPHIN HUNTING, seeing as how they ARE DOLPHINS. WHALING is the HUNTING of baleen whales, the larger speices of beaked whale, and the sperm whale. END of fucking discussion. Jonas Poole ( talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for revealing your POV on the issue and your lack of maturity. You've not only admitted that Roys' use of the rocket harpoon is indeed mentioned in books on modern whaling (which by the way includes its use in Iceland as well as its influence on Svend Foyn) but you've shown a general lack of knowledge regarding small cetaceans. Hunting "pilot whales" and other small cetaceans is often referred to as small-type whaling. The IWC also concerns itself with pilot whales and other small cetaceans. And the simple scientific fact of the matter is ALL dolphins and porpoises are WHALES in the same way that chimpanzees and gorillas are both primates or great apes. You are removing relevant information from the article based on your own incorrect assumptions and arrogance. Cetamata ( talk) 19:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

ACCORDING THE HISTORY OF MODERN WHALING

Roys and Lilliendahl first operated a Steamer that towed two rowing boats from which the whales were shot with the rocket harpoon

In the winter of 1865-66 they operated three steamers, two of which were IRON CLAD.

Yes the whales were shot with ROCKET HARPOONS by the whalers in rowing boats. However, it is not unreasonable to place this information under the heading of "modern whaling" as the rocket harpoon design was tested in Icelandic waters in developing MODERN techniques for hunting whales using explosives and powered vessels. Placing under the title "American Whaling" is misleading because the rocket harpoon was experimental and not the norm for American whalers and this was clearly not the "traditional" method for hunting whales by Europeans or Americans. It should be listed under modern whaling even if it merely served as a transitional technology from the old whalers to the new. Cetamata ( talk) 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah I don't know what is going on. I would recommend a third opinion but I have already provided one so maybe an RfC is appropriate. I don't understand why Jonas Poole is so upset about this. Is there a DOLPHIN HUNTING in Iceland article? And what is up with "Roy's effort"s? I'm not seeing a discussion on the talk page so don't understand the concern. Is this a conflict over the information (which looks sourced) or where it goes? It seems silly to WP:BATTLE over.

For now, Jonas Poole is probably going to receive a block for incivility which will quiet things down for a day. The admins might chose to just warn him though.

The talk page needs to be used to figure it out not edit summaries when reverting. Right now it looks like edit warring even if 3rr has not been breached. So your next step should be to open a discussion on the talk page to find consensus. If he reverts against it (assuming we find it) then there is a problem. Maybe a couple deep breaths on his part would help. Cptnono ( talk) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I started a talk section on the Whaling in Iceland discussion page after the first undo and got no response there. He's not paying attention to it or just chose to address me directly. Cetamata ( talk) 20:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I see the dolphin discussion and he needs to engage over there to hammer out consensus. Is there a discussion on the Roy part though? Is this really about the section header? That is silly. I mentioned it here. Cptnono ( talk) 20:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, both listed under the latest topic except it doesn't go into detail about Roys the way I've done here because there was no discussion there other than my initial post. Basically the pilot whale information was removed twice through edit and revert and the Roys stuff was moved to a subsection "American Whaling" from "Modern Whaling" because Poole believes rocket harpoons aren't modern enough. Seemed POV to me considering its specifically mentioned in the history of modern whaling citations I provided in the article... =/ Cetamata ( talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Continue Discussion here.

Look here -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 10:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Whaling in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy oil ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Cetamata. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply