Talk:Year of the Dolphin

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please help me out to keep this article. I do not know what to do to save this entry. I started this lemma just minutes ago and was buissy with editing as someone already want it for deletion.
2007 has been recognised as an official UN Year of the Dolphins and has only began today and therefore there is not much information available yet for the moment; just some basic facts. As the year will be continuing, international organisations, countries, media etc. will organise activities or pay attantion to it. So then thereafter there will be more possibilities to write and adjust this lemma in Wikipedia. - (Brabo 02:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I can see that this article does have value, and in my opinion should be kept. I have put in a link to it from the main Dolphins page. By the way, the first 2 paragraphs need some sort of amalgamation, and the "ref" currently leads nowhere. Hogyn Lleol 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welshwalrus, I do get the point…

..and trust me, when it comes to drive hunts and dolphinariums, we are on the same page.

I’m sorry you were excluded from the YoD. However, throwing dirt at an entire campaign that, like it or not, has numerous achievements in the fields of education, awareness and well beyond, is not mature. Also, it lacks intellectual integrity.

Of course it is unfortunate, to say the least, that TUI has affiliations with institutions that, among many other things, display captive dolphins. It sure hasn’t heightened my opinion of them (not that it was very high to start with..). You will have to concede though, that a vast and complex body like TUI cannot be expected to change direction within weeks. Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending them, they have lawyers for that, but still, it just isn’t realistic..

Another thing: It cannot be that more than half of the Wiki-article on the YoD consists of your opinions and attacks. Please shorten your contribution considerably (i.e. by 80%; stick to relevant facts and be concise; leave out stuff like "Our work is based here in the surprisingly cetacean rich waters of West Wales. We are extremely active and on a few thousand pounds per year our 100+ volunteers conduct year round ferry surveys, small boat surveys, shore based surveys, awareness raising..." That kind of info belongs on your website, not on the YoD page.). If you want, you can post the long version in the discussion forum, that's exactly what it's there for.

Oh, and on your question who I am: I prefer not to be slandered/libeled, so I will not disclose my identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversity1 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering in in the middle of something?

Hi all, not sure where I am entering the discussion here, it seems others are in the middle of something? so I dont want to tread on anyones toes - but I agree with the comment made above by User:Diversity1 that the 'Public perception / Opinions' section needs to be edited considerably to remove all bias and personal opinions, as currently the page does not conform to the wikipedia guidlines or ethos.

I don't want to just undo the entries which have been made over the last few days, as I think something constructive can be created from the information, but I am not happy to let this page remain as it is for too long. (Frammy7 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, Frammy 7.

I am checking the article daily and, if there is no action by Welshwalrus by tomorrow this time, will do the pruning myself. I'll leave the basic gist of Welshwalrus' statement and remove everything else, which should shorten the section considerably. A lot of enthusiastic people have put their time into YoD and seeing them all put down like this just won't do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversity1 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Walrus reply

Hi, I am a bit new to all this and to be perfectly honest, slightly surprised and not a little delighted at the opportunity to expose the peoople who have made the YoD a bit of a farce. It could and should have been superb, but is at best mediocre and flawed. I gave an honest account of our experience and opinion. I have no intention of libeling or slandering anyone or even getting involved in a meaningless argument. If this is a forum then let others use serious debate to justify their opinion as a balance to mine. I have made my point and am happy to leave it at that. It was nice to get the opportunity and for a little while at least we have concentrated a few minds on an extremely important subject. I thought I had been pretty restrained, if my contribution is making people unhappy because it rocks the wikiboat then feel free to delete! as the old proverb goes , "allthe darkness in the universe cannot diminsh the light of one small candle, allthingsgood, WW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshwalrus (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]