User talk:Bob98133/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Re:About removal of link to http://www.uniqlooks.com/pages/pashmina/info/pashminaInfo.html

Hi Bob, As you said, I will mentioned the relevant information in the article and will add it as resource. Doesn't we then also need to add other links such as www.cashemre.org as resource. I am confused between External links v/s Resource

thanks Maninder


Re:About removal of link to http://www.uniqlooks.com/pages/pashmina/info/pashminaInfo.html

Hi Bob,

Thanks for replying, but the link you suggested is not providing correct information.

http://fashion.about.com/blcashmerearticle.htm

It says Pashmina is finest grade of cashmere. Which is not true. I am in Cashmere trade from decades. And Cashmere and pashmina refers to same type of wool. If a site is commercial and provides correct information and helps increase awareness about certain topic, I think it is very valid to include such link. Please let me know what you think. If you doubt about anything I said, please read following article about cashmere and pashmina

http://cashmere.org/cm/news_article.php?id=28&public=Y

I hope you understand the point I am making. I am fighting for increasing awareness among people about Cashmere. It would be great if you can include that link. From that page if you want me to remove some information which makes you comfortable, please let me know, I can do that.

Re:About removal of link to http://www.uniqlooks.com/pages/pashmina/info/pashminaInfo.html

Hi Bob,

I remember this link have been there for ages, and if you go to this link, it provides some important information which is not even mentioned in Wiki. In result this pages helps people buy real cashmere. I think it is very relevant link and should not be removed.

Could you please add it again? Or explain in details what you think is wrong with link. Yes it is a commercial website, but the page which has been linked to provides information which make it valid to be included in Wiki. I think it fulfill all conditions mentioned for links which can be included.

regards msahota —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msahota (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Extinct in the wild and domestication

Hello Bob,

Being extinct in the wild and domestication of animals shares the same meaning. Animals that are extinct in the wild are animals that are still around in captivity but can no longer be found in the wild, EG Chickens, Chickens can no longer be found in the wild. I can gurantee you that you won't find chickens living in the wild, therefore they are extinct in the wild because they don't live independantly in the wild anymore. However that's not to say they are extinct, being extinct and being extinct in the wild are both two entirely diffrent matters.


As opposed to domestication and extinction in the wild that mean exactly the same things. When an animal is domesticated it only lives with humans and not in the wild, which is exactly the same thing as "extinct in the wild", and if domestication and extinct in the wild don't mean the same thing then why put the word "domestication" under conservation status?

Why not just put a conservation chart under everything and just tell the truth? and make it a hell of a lot easier for people to understand, Especially when domestication and EX meaning exactly the same thing.

Sorry to butt in, Bob So, if we turn this argument around, since dogs and cats still exist in the wild, they are not domesticated??? Can't you see there's something wrong with this reasoning?--Ramdrake (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Animal Rights Edit

Hi there Bob98133. I'm new to wikipedia, as far as editing pages goes. So if I took out the donate related material, then it would be good to go. This was a project that I had to do and I figured my part was the only part that I could give input on. Or maybe you have some advice, of what I could add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKilcoyne (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: World's Favourite Animal

Hello there Bob98133. I am a volunteer of the organisation Save China's Tigers, that is why i know how much that online poll meant. That online poll is respected and acknowledged internationally by many animal experts and conservationist worldwide because of the number of voters and varying countries. So i think they are good references and shows democracy. It shows the popularity of animals and the poll is organised by Animal planet, a respectable international TV channel, that is why the results are considered reliable. 

China's Tiger 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC);

Re: sheep changes

Hi. If you need to revert to a previous version, click on the "History" tab and pick an article revision that did not contain vandalism. Then simply click the "Edit" tab (you will get a small red warning) and then click save. Admins get a rollback button that reverts the last string of edits by any user, but this might not always work. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! You seem to be off to a good start, please check out WP:CVU for more information on vandal fighting. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Newkirk

No worries, and welcome to Wikipedia. :-) I agree that the way the page is currently written isn't very satisfactory, but the danger with creating a criticism section is that it tends to act as a magnet for POV pushers, and that's especially to be avoided in a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights

If your concern is grammar than fix it, but don't use it as an excuse. Later I'll restore the deletions, I don't have time to do it now. bye --BMF81 12:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason for inclusion

Hi, my reason for including that statement is simple. Vegans are primarily asked to add B12 supplements, more than any other dietary group and an entire paragraph is devoted in the WP article to that fact, so it is best to inform the reader about the pitfalls of supplements, especially since it recommends having B12 pills. B12 deficiency and the consequences of artificial sources are very much relevant to veganism - but it should also find a mention in the B12 article and I will add it. Thanks. Idleguy 03:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Goat link

Reply on talk page. —SlamDiego←T 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Thanks for fixing refs/Evan Almighty

No problem - my pleasure. Even though I "reffed" them, I didn't format them correctly for lack of time. To see how they should be properly formatted (inlcude author name, retrieval date, etc...) see WP:ECITE.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarian

I agree that the term is stupid, but it is one that is used in regards to Flexitarianism.--Jcvamp 02:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Onechectomy

I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at {{User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw}}

User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the {{ }} and w/o the [[ ]] to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}Hi, PatPeter. Nothing urgent at the moment but I wanted to thank you for the offer of help. I would like to get "adopted" so maybe you could tell me how I go about that. I think I've been doing OK with posting and editing but I'll need some help with formatting, particularly of references. I also find the image copyright stuff pretty confusing unless it's a picture that I took. Also, re your offer of anti-declawing userbox. I am against declawing unless there is some medical requirement for doing so, but I'm trying not to fill up my whole page with userboxes so I chose not to display that one. Thanks again Bob98133 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not PatPeter but you can see users who are willing to adopt is at Category:Wikipedians seeking to adopt in Adopt-a-user. Cheers; — Rlest 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Eggs

Hi,

I noticed your revert on eggs, a minor suggesetion would be rather than reverting the most immediate vandalism, go back through the history to find a reliable contributor and revert to their version - some vandals go through multiple edits to vandalize different parts of the article.

Thanks,

WLU 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

De nada. If you are interested in learning more about wikipedia quickly, try adoption. My current adoptee seems to have found it useful, but I'm a biased source. WLU 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Raccoon

That article fools people into thinking that it is the main article on the Raccoon. Can you help take all the Common Raccoon info over to the Common Raccoon page? Speciate 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits to meat

Hi, My apologies for claiming you to be the sockpuppet of anon a/c 68.199.211.80 who was pushing a very pro-meat non NPOV agenda. I did that as your changes were very similar to his/hers. I apologise if you are not the same user. However, you deleted a a paragraph on the well regarded Nurses' Health study in favour of one by Vilhjalmur Stefansson. I think it is only fair that you include both. --Nuttycoconut 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

animals euthanized

Bob98133, cats and dogs are not used in food, and (at least I would suspect), the numbers are not significant for circuses. I think the measure that compares cats and dogs used in experiments relative to all euthanized cats and dogs is fairly reasonable to keep. Can you give me a reason why it's so unreasonable? --chodges 18:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I think you seem to have an irrational dislike of this information. It is relevant, because it illustrates the scale of animal usage killed or euthanized in research compared to all other euthanasia of the same animals:
  1. it places it in context, by normalizing the research usage (which is a part) to the whole;
  2. it provides a statistic with which most non-experts will have more familiarity;
  3. if we were talking about Ford Explorer accident rates, we would compare them to the national average accident rate... this is essentially the same thing, to clear up POV issues.
For these reasons, I think there is a need to have the comparison. --chodges 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't disagree with you more; I think that information is probably more important than some of the information that's there. In any case, it's moot as SlimVirgin pointed out that my post violated WP:SYNT. If and when I find primary literature that gives an idea of the amount of animals used in research compared all other non-natural deaths, I'm sure it will find it's way to the article. Cheers. --chodges 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

dispute with another editor

{{helpme}} Talk:Bullfighting I have been discussing certain changes to the bullfighting page. Initially, I removed some content that was not documented and that I felt was POV. Editor GS3 objected to the changes and we've been discussing them. Initially, his response was essentially "everyone knows this is true" which I rejected. In the case of whether or not the word "daring" was POV, he finally supplied references to support his case and I agreed that the word should stay. Other areas, such as the increasing popularity of Recourtes, he maintains that everyone knows that this is true. Likewise, he replaced wording that incidates that animal rights activists prefer bull fights without injuries to traditional bullfighting. My understanding is that animal rights activists oppose all use of animals for entertainment, so this seems unlikely. Editor GS3 has reverted the text to his original version despite the discussion. What should I do at this point? Thanks!

Hi. I can't really participate on this one - I have to rush out, but I've had a look and I see he has reverted about 5 days worth of edits (fortunately it's not as BAD as that might sound, but still...). The most important thing is to not end up wheel-warring, which is why it is good that you've posted a helpme. At this point it would be useful if a third party intervened, sort of like a third-opinion. Otherwise you should try reason with him (remain civil and calm etc) and see if that helps. Also as you may know, it is usually acceptable to revert a reversion ONCE (putting an informative edit summary please), then see if he reverts back, at which point you should probably not RE-revert because that would probably be wheel-warring.

Having said that I just need to resay, let's do our best to not have a wheel-war here. Rfwoolf 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! It seems that you have a working dialog in progress on the talk page, so I would suggest you post your suggested changes to the Bullfighting talk page and then discuss them there. henrik•talk 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PETA

Thanks that edit made it read so much better. Moorematthews 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob98133- I was a bit taken by surprise about your comment on my insertion of The Animal Research War in the PeTA section. This is published by a reputable publisher (indeed, the world's largest) and I recently reviewed it for a commercial publication. It presents a different and highly referenced and academic side of PeTA then common...but isn't balance what we are striving for? /JG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnand thegolden (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front

Thanks for spotting my mistake!! Must admit it did make me laugh as there has been an IP user who clearly wishes to vandalise the article and who has also twice vandalised my user page this week, who was deliberately adding stuff on the article to make it read the opposite of how it should read, and then I go and mess it up and do their job for them!!! Ah well!! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Walt Disney Company

Hi Bob, thank you for your recent revert on The Walt Disney Company however can you please provide a source for your statement that Time/Warner is larger? It would be great if there is a specific reference so it can be includes on the Disney page to prevent vandalism, mis-information or simply fan-dom. Thanks. Tiggerjay 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like a good source to me. Tiggerjay 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Also for future reference, please remember to add your new posts to the very bottom of the page instead of in the middle, which can be confusing. Thanks. Tiggerjay 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Animal testing on non-human primates

The NHP page was originally a split off the animal testing page by slimvirgin. SV copied all the allegations of abuse, except the UCLA incident, to the NHP page, and additionally left them on the animal testing page. I wanted to move them all to the NHP page and replace them on the animal testing page with a pointer, because the entire purpose of the split was to save space, and not to duplicate everything. However, my edits on the animal testing page were reverted, and I see what you are saying in that the UCLA incident scarcely involved allegations of abuse, so I re-organized that section on the NHP page. I also initiated discussion on the animal testing page to see if these items of controversy MUST be listed on every testing page, or if pointers may be placed on some pages to save space and come closer to article size guidelines. See Talk:Animal_testing --Animalresearcher 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Speciesism on discrimination template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Discrimination#RFC:_deciding_if_specieism_should_be_in_the_template

Hi I thought you might be interested in commenting on this request for comment. -- Librarianofages 03:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with anonymous user

{{helpme}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowhide I have been removing a commercial link that has been placed on this page. An anonymous user keeps replacing the link. The history page shows this. I don't think that anonymous users have talk pages, so dont' know how to contact him, so is it possible for this page to be protected agasint anonymous submissions? Is that something I can do? If so, how? Thanks Bob98133 22:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That is spam. I have warned the IP (yes, they do have talkpages). A page can be semi-protected (disabling edits from IP's and new users) at WP:RFPP. In the future, you can use the templates at WP:WARN to warn new users; I have done so already. Oh yes, and you can link to a page on Wikipedia by enclosing the name in two brackets, like [[Cowhide]]. Happy wiki-ing! NF24(radio me!Editor review) 22:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gorilla videos

What's wrong with the videos? We have videos of captive tigers in the tiger article. Why not the same for gorillas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisbob (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay Bobisbob (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mouse2.xl.jpg

Can the owner of this photo really not release it GFDL? It's 29KB and poor quality at that. --David Shankbone 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a drive--one I was against for awhile until it was explained to me--against copyrighted photos. Basically, it's about the freedom of the site and the ability for its content to be reproduced for commercial and public use. Unless something is really needed, there is strong consensus against copyrighted photos. There are two ways to address the issue: 1. ask for permission to have the photo released GFDL (meaning commercial and non-commercial reproduction) or take one yourself and license it in such a way. If you have one of those traps, that may be the best way to go about it. Although, it helps to have mice in it. --David Shankbone 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mouse2.xl.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mouse2.xl.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

regarding your addition to Domestic sheep

Hi, I just had a quick question about your addition to the Predation section of Domestic sheep. The ref you provided is supposed to verify a University of Michigan study, which (according to the ref as you formatted it) is on page 96. However, the pamphlet is by a group called Defenders of Wildlife, a carnivore conservation group, and page 96 is a table of contents. Perhaps you meant another page? VanTucky 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Peta - POV

Hey, I removed your recent comment along with the anon. comment you were replying to because it was pretty much just nonsense... I sniff troll =). -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I agree with you. I would rather reply with an explaination of Wikipedia policy, and let the statements stand. It also falls under Assuming Good Faith, as the editor may have presented their case poorly, or not understood the rules of Wikipedia. In any case, your response is helpful for other editors as well. Bytebear (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

veganism definition

Hiya! No problem; I'm glad to have more users watching and contributing to the article. KellenT 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there, thanks for getting involved with the animal testing article, having more editors involved on the talk page might well make our discussions a bit more productive. Tim Vickers (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Ethics of Eating Meat

You changed, "Vegetarians and vegans usually respond ... that many natural behaviors of animals are appalling when exhibited by humans, for example, rape,[12] intra-species killing, [13] and cannibalism.[14]"

to "Vegetarians and vegans usually respond ... that many natural behaviors of animals would be appalling if exhibited by humans, for example, rape,[12] intra-species killing, [13] and cannibalism.[14]"

and gave the reason "rvt POV changes, depends on culture". I'm not sure what you mean by it depends on culture, are you making the argument that some cultures don't find these kinds of behaviors appalling? Or are you making the argument that these things don't happen in certain cultures? Calibas (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I may not agree with your views (not that I'd have any idea about what they might be, we're all impartial Wikipedia editors here), but it's good to see an attempt to deal with these scum. John Nevard (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fish

Hi. I tried to tidy up a little, sorry. I tend to feel legend is not an npov word when used about a sacred text.Andycjp (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning template

Sorry I placed a warning template on Ilikebeef's talk page even though you reverted the edit. I looked at the time stamp for their vandalizing edit instead of the time stamp for your revert, and I figured that you forgot to do it. I apologize for stepping on your territory.  :) Djk3 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Ingrid Newkirk PETA ref

Hi - thanks for adding in the reference for that AIDS remark on the PETA page. However, your source is from a press release from an opposing group so I wonder if there is not a better reference. I have seen that this came from the Sept 1989 issue of Vogue, but I haven't seen that magazine. I don't doubt that the quote is correct since it appears many places, just that perhaps there is a less contentious source for it.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I went into the article's history about six months back to find it. I did not judge the quality of the source. It was just the article originally used multiple instances of that reference and the original instance and the other instances were not updated so the reference was lost. This has happened to countless articles before. LamontStormstar (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism reversions

Hello Bob
I noticed that you revert a lot of vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the vandals talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the vandal has been warned four times in the last month, (Check the vandal's talk page history. Some vandals remove warnings from their talk pages.) report the vandal by going to this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mulesing article

{{help me}} Editor Grinchsmate has been consistently reverting referenced edits on the Mulesing page. While not all of his edits have been POV, many of them are in spite of the references. It seems pointless to comment on his talk page, or discuss items, since he runs over any criticism and continues along. Can you arbitrate please? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is a bit of a strong step at this stage, firstly talk it out with and see if you can resolve the conflict on the articles talk page and each others user pages. If there is still a stalemate at this point take it to ANI. Also try not to violate 3R while your at it.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 14:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

very sorry if it seems like i am steam rolling what you are doing but i have refrenced everything i have done and none of them have been simple reverts, in particular i feel that you have misunderstood the reference from the ava. this may sound strange but i feel that i am removing bias against mulesing, as you can see i have tried to remove the emotive language. tonight your move of the information to controversy got me thinking about cleaning up the article so i removed any duplicity i found this resulted in a much smaller controversy section but all the material is still in the article, except for info about the arthritis study i just couldnt find a place where it would fit, i have specifically answered the should/may question, if you have any other specific queries to what i have done jsut ask (on mulesing talk). Grinchsmate (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of McClane

Hi Bob98133. I'm a bit curious to know why you removed a reference McClanes's New Standard Fishing Encyclopedia and International Angling Guide I just added to fishing and angling. I popped it there for now because it is the main reference used in the current edition of Britannica. It is not readily accessible on the web and I can't find the ISBN, so I requested a copy from my library to have a closer look. I've no idea at this stage whether it really warrants being there, but it seems to me that it would be good for the fishing article to have two or three definitive references. I've been looking for them, sofar without success. It's good to see you looking after fishing vandals, bye the way. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well good morning again. I see you are still reverting my edits concerning how notes and references might be formatted. I can't see the problem in WP:CITE. Here are three places where the style I use is specifically supported:
If my thinking need to be set straight, would you please explain it to me and direct me specifically to those parts of the guidelines I am not understanding. Cheers. --Geronimo20 (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused Bob. You seem to have replied to the first (earliest) message above, which was nearly two weeks ago, rather than replying to the current message, which is immediately above. Also, are you saying that this revert was not done by you but was done by someone else?--Geronimo20 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

vegetarianism article

I think you were correct in reverting what may be a weasel word addition by myself to the vegetarianism article. Readers would be best of reading the reference and making a judgment call on this assertion themselves, whether nutritional experts I reference are "respected". I've quantified the viewpoint more specifically, detailing Michael Eades, M.D. as a nutritional expert and low-carb advocate supporting this stance (that study shows vegetarian diets cause faster aging), while avoiding any weasel wording. Let me know if you feel otherwise.Wits (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"rvt last edit - presumption is unavailable factors not considered" Fair enough. Wits (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

citations

Please note that there are several relevant articles about both McDonald's and Starbucks on my blog and that I have years of experience consulting in this industry. The admonition against citing one's own blog is NOT absolute and is warranted where the reference adds important context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamespfarrell (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

orca

Replied on my talk page and at Talk:Orca. Hesperian 13:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Puppy mill 01.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Puppy mill 01.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Puppy mill02.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Puppy mill02.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

PETA Euthanasia stats

Thanks, glad you liked it. I did my best to make the edit respect WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and not violate WP:SYN, but with all the emotion going on on that page, I'll admit it's not an easy matter.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SPCA as a no-kill shelter

Sorry about the confusion there, as my information was that the SPCA as a whole hadn't adopted a no-kill stance (at least that's the case here in Canada). However, I stand duly corrected that some individual chapters may have such a policy. Thank you for the information.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Dog training. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please discuss plagiarism issues in the talk page. Editing the article with an unofficial notice of plagiarism is considered vandalism. connor.carey (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Article plagiarism resulted in need for action - only problem was that notification was placed in the main article instead of the talk page connor.carey (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You may revert to an earlier revision that is clean of copyright violations, as per Wikipedia's guidelines on plagiarism. Please be sure to describe your actions in the article's talk page, including the link to the original source of the materials. Thanks for spotting it in the first place! connor.carey (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Circus

Please see the talk page of the circus article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.241.74 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

vegan edit

Hi! Yeah, I thought the phrasing was awkward and could be read as "oh look at those silly vegans, they try not to use animals, but they do anyway." Using "endeavor" is essentially synonymous with the "seeks" in the definition. KellenT 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

vegetarian article

No problem Bob. You were right that the section was bogus. Peace. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 20:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

American mink citation unnecessary

I think it was you that put a few (citation needed) marks on the American Mink page. If not, please tell me so I can figure out who did. Several places you wrote (citation needed) were all ready cited. The citations I wrote included more than one sentence, so rather than repeating the same citation over and over after every thought supported by that citation, I only wrote it once. If you read a little more carefully, and look at the names of the works cited, you will see that most of what you wrote (citation needed) next to, had a citation already. The statements that weren't cited I left alone, but the places that are already cited I erased the (citation needed) next to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bearskins

I have provided the references requested in your three citation needed tags. However I would comment that (i) the "do not remove without citing references" cover note was unnecessary and frankly irritating; and (ii) the material provided was a simple response to another editor who asked for background on the historical origins of this military headdress. It has nothing to do with the current moral issue of cruelty to animals involved in the continued culling of Canadian bears.Buistr (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanatory response. That's fine. Incidentally I too would prefer to see the various ceremonial guard units listed in the article parading in synthetic fur hats. Hard to believe that modern technology can't find a way to maintain picturesque traditions while avoiding the unnecessary killing of animals.Buistr (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Domestic turkey article

Can you please check your facts before you make changes or deletions? Just because you think something is garbage, or you prefer "pets" to "companion animals" doesn't mean that the sources you are quoting support this, or that you are correct. Arbitrary changes to support your POV are simply POV and not acceptable. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference you give {[1]) does not use the phrase "companion animals" for turkeys at any point. Note that Companion animal redirects to Pet. Neıl 龱 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Our turkey adoption process resembles those of companion animal shelters that match cats and dogs with caring and responsible adopters," said Leanne Cronquist, Farm Sanctuary's California shelter manager. "We carefully screen all our applicants and ensure they are committed to providing lifelong sanctuary for their new companions. After all, turkeys are bright, social and sensitive animals who-like cats and dogs-deserve the very best in life." {http://www.farmsanctuary.org/mediacenter/2007/pr_turkey_express_CA.html} ph#2

It sounds to me that if people are providing their turkey companions sanctuary, that a pet turkey is refered to as a companion. The line in the article clearly says that Farm Sanctuary says...and Farm Sanctuary says companion animal. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but it's minor enough that it can stay in the article. I did remove some of the other false statements in the section that were supposedly in the reference. Neıl 龱 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the recent issue Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD . I have made some comments and explainations at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#TinucherianBot and I am leaving this note just for your information -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

dmoz

Hi Bob -

I added the dmoz template to Staffordshire Bull Terrier as an alternative to people adding links to dog clubs etc. directly to the article. My understanding is that dmoz is generally a link to be considered (see WP:EL). Regardless, I removed the External Links header as there wasnt any links after the removal of dmoz. Cheers, MidgleyDJ (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bob - dmoz is under Wikipedia:El#Links_to_be_considered. Cheers, MidgleyDJ (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bob - Thanks. I find dmoz useful when the article is the subject of much "linking" by organisations, clubs, companies etc associated with a particular product. MidgleyDJ (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bob98133/Archive_1"