User talk:Bob98133/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fisherman or fisher?

Hi Bob. I saw your comment about fishermen versus fishers on Talk:Angling. I think a general discussion on this is overdue, so I have started one here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User Sfucss

I see you have just reverted Sfucss. This user seems to be operating several other accounts in a similar fashion, see NatFisherman. I think I reverted in a manner that was a little hasty to begin with. (I'm not sure how to handle this). --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a new user and not operating any other accounts. I am just trying to post some academic articles that I thought would be relevant and helpful to readers. We don't profit from people reading these articles but are just trying to increase access to current information. While some links may have gone to previous conference info (my mistake) many were links to proceedings and other articles. I don't understand why everything was erased? Please advise as to whether this type of information does have a place on Wikepedia. Sfucss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfucss (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

it was removed because it is pointless and has no content, add your link elsewhere

it was removed because it is pointless and has no content, add your link elsewhere

Why did you post an edit summary here that is just about totally inaccurate.The only point that may be true is that it is pointless and that is debatable .

There is content at that link despite what your edit summary says and also how is it my link .I didn't add it to the article but merely reverted a removal without an edit summary . Garda40 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography on Animal Law and Animal Ethics

Message from Bob Please look at WP:EL for some guidelines about what sort of links are appropriate for Wiki. Search result links such as you ahve been posting are really not very helpful and are not considered appropriate. There also appears to be a conflict of interest since the links you are tyring to place seem very similar to your user name - this, too, is a violation of wiki policy. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bob

I am new at this wiki - editing. You took away a link to the section concerning animal law, which is part of a bibliography on philosophy of law.The section of the bibliography is solely about works concerning the philosophy of animal law and ethics. I work at the library. This link was posted in order to help people find relevant material about animal ethics and the philosophy of animal law. How can you consider that as inappropriate material? I was really a bit offended by your reaction to take off the page immediately! I studied law and philosophy and philosophy and animal ethics was also part of my study. So I really know that I was not submitting 'inappropriate or unhelpful' links. It refers solely to books about animal ethics and animal law.

kangaroo meat

I noticed that you had removed this information from Kangaroo article. I understand the reason (unreferenced) why you removed. But I thought I would bring this article Kangaroo meat in wikipedia to your attention. Thanks. Docku^Hi 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagerization and information that is in the public domain

The information from the FDA page is a publication of the United States government and is not subject to copyright or ownership, and was attributed as such; thus there is no plagiarization.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is mildly edited and pretty much duplicated, I could have presented it better. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

electronically altered

Hi Bob98133, could you please explain me one more time, if you believe cropped images are to be electronically altered? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. Almost all my great white sharks images including a unique image with the shark on his back were removed from all the articles. I believe all those articles have greatly benefited from the removing of the images. Thanks for your contributins!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO it might be better to learn first before performing drastic changes on the articles, and discouraging photographers from uploading images to Wikipedia. I, for example, would think twice before uploading another image thanks to you. You've got what you wanted. The unique, hard to take image was removed from the articles.It was my last message. Thank you for the responses. I'm not interested in continuing the discussion any more.Best wishes and good luck with your learning process.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Link spam?

Hi Bob. I'm aware that it is borderline, but I wouldn't quite call that spam – he's not trying to promote anything in particular. I added them because the guy seems very clued up on his local area, and has obviously put a lot of research and thought into the articles. He provides references and I was quite impressed with the way he tackles some of the more off beat and controversial aspects of fishing. I intend to dig deeper into some of this. I added them with the intention of coming back later and picking the eyes out of them. I'm too tied up elsewhere to do that at the moment. However, if they offend you, remove them. I'll note them somewhere else, off Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing images?

Maybe it is a time to upload one of your own? I mean, if you did upload an image on your own , you probably would have known that the statement "I created this work entirely by myself" is promted by Wikipedia upload screen, and maybe then your edit summary would have been a little bit more meaningful than "deleted "created" image ".I took the image of albino alligator in California Academy of Sciences. The image description, the image name and the description in the article clearly specified that alligator is albino and provided the link to albinism article.Well, just for you I added the text that mentions albino to alligator article.BTW IMO, if you were missing a reference in text, I believe you could have added something yourself instead of deleting the image. After all you are a writer, aren't you? --Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know about the Wiki wording. My past experience with your images is that for you created means constructed from parts of other images, pieces missings, or otherwise tampered with. Who I am, what I do, what my zipcode is, or where I live is none of your f-cking business, so please stop asking. Bob98133 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I told you before that it is none of your business what I do, where I live, what my zipcode is or any other personal information. Please stop insisting that I am a writer, as in the alligator talk page. Can you please document that I am a writer? Or ar you just blowing this out of your. Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I just moved your messages and my messages in the same place for easier follow up. I cannot document that you are a writer.

You documented it yourself, so I assumed you are a writer. You said: "I'm a writer who has written primarily for print publications - the underground press ..." Of course I'm not sure what does it mean "the underground press". I've heard this word "underground" in the connection with Bill Ayers. May I please ask you, if "the underground press" has something to do with this? I'm sorry I'm asking you so many questions. I'm only learning English and all help with my learning process is greatly appreciated. On the other hand there are some words that you're using and that I would not have liked to learn. I'm talking about the word you used before the word "business" in one of your messages to me. I even did not know what this word meant, so I asked my American friend and I did not like what I heard.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO it is better to keep all in one place, shall we?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Who I am or what I do, has nothing to do with editing Wiki. Wiki is anonymous. My user page states nothing about being a writer. You have been pulling up an outdated, archived version of this page. You claim that I documented being a writer. That's part of the problem with your editing - you believe that if you say something, then it is documented. This is not the case. Documenting means supplying a source. I don't know what you're talking about "underground". I don't know who Bill Ayers is, and I don't really care. Please refrain from any future comments about me or what I do. If you wish to comment about edits that I've made, feel free to do so as long as you do not revert to personal remarks. I will remove the links to my user page on alligator. Good luck learning English. Bob98133 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you could change my comment on alligator talk page, but of course, if you do not want to be a wtiter. I'll let it go .--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals

Re your edit summary: Maybe, but it was a dead dingo baby :) -> ie, I didn't think it added anything so took it out, but I have no objection to it being there. The Us section is a bit detailed compared to the others. Cheers, Verbal chat 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor's talk page defaults to Wiki article

{{helpme}} I have been trying to send a message to editor Dodo_bird [1], but when I go to his talk page, it defaults to Talk to the hand (expression). Is this allowed? I almost edited that article until I saw what Dodo had done. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Editors have to be able to communicate, and the talk page needs to be able to communication. Deleting that reditect. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The same editor, Dodo bird, has been editing Pedigree Dogs Exposed, Neutering and several other pages. He/she will not respond to any comments or discuss changes, but continually reverts. We are up to or past the three reversion limit. What can be done about this rogue editor? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring noticeboard is here. If the user refuses to communicate and keep reverting then the edit warring noticeboard is probably the right place to seek help. Unless his edits are vandalism, I suggest you simply stop reverting or editing these two articles for a while otherwise you risk getting blocked too. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaltio

Kaltio is a main Finnish magazine cultural magazine. I see no reason why the reference cannot be used. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree we should avoid this reference in case of controversial statements. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fancy rat

i think u're referring to {{wait}}, i had the {{undercontruction}} template up instead - meaning i was in the middle of working on it, but not to the level i was worried about edit conflicts. i appreciate your diligence though and i added a ref for you :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

rvt commercial EL - could Skunk-be-Gone be POV?

Hi Bob,

You reverted my outbound / external muskrat link that was href to skunkbgone.com/news/muskrats

Skunkbgone.com houses articles of interest associated with fur-bearing animals from local, national and global sources. All sources are reliable new sources. Originating sources contained within full article

Muskrat is one of the channels within skunkbgone.com that showcases the following fur-bearing animals:

   * skunks
   * raccoons
   * squirrels
   * opossums
   * beavers
   * muskrats
   * red foxes
   * black bears

Skunkbgone.com unique wildlife channels focus on specific animals and provide great detail and content such as:

   * Articles of interest
   * wild game home cooking tips and recipes
   * Service directories for Pest Control, Roofers, Handy Men, Home improvement, Insurance and more. All sources are reliable new sources.
   * Federal and Provincial hunting and fur management regulations and details.
   * Pelt and fur preparation and handling techniques
   * Service directory to find pest removal technicians and other home / handyman services.
  

+ tons more

All content is from reliable sources that are acknowledged and linked to within the full content of all articles.

info@skunkbgone.com to let me know why my external links are not allowed. POV?

Thanking you in advance

B.

I see, thanks for the heads up. I removed comments as they were not relevant once I did more research. I was unaware they still alerted you post deletion. I appreciate your honest feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelyAdam (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No-Kill Shelter - editor ignoring talk

{{helpme}} Hi - I've been editing the No-kill shelter article for some time. Lately editor Dodo has been making POV changes, including changing the name of the article and moving it, without discussing his changes or allowing other editors time to respond. I don't necessarily disagree with all of his changes, however he is riding roughshod over other editors and refuses to discuss his changes. What can I do about this besides reverting his edits? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not much. If you can build consensus for a change and he does something against consensus it could be considered vandalism. There is also the WP:3rr rule. If you disagree try to get him to the talk page and always use clear edit summaries. Use the dispute resolution process if it continues. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your request over at WP:3O. As I described in my edit summary this isn't really a content dispute. I would open a tread over at wikiquette alerts. If the user is maliciously editing you might want to consider opening a thread over at WP:ANI. Nn123645 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reordering hypoallergenic dog page

Bob98133,

I like what you have done to the page. Much tidier and certainly seems to be more founded/factual.

The last paragraph in the hypothesis section is regarding environmental control. I would advise making a new section for this. The points I would suggest include: there can be allergic thresholds of dog dander in homes without pets because it gets tracked in on others peoples clothes and gear; Any measures that include allowing the presence of a dog indoors is likely suboptimal for the allergic individual; And that the recommendation of reputable physicians, most importantly allergists, is absence of dog in the home and workplace of dog allergy sufferers.

Mlodew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlodew (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Cooking Mama

{{Helpme}} A persistent IP vandal has reverted a referenced change to Cooking Mama, and disregarded attempts to discuss the change. Please semi-protect this page to stop IP vandalism. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Requests for page protection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I gave that IP a level 3 warning[2]. Please give him a level 4 {{uw-vandalism4}}} warning if he continues to vandalize then report the IP to WP:AIV so he gets blocked. Semi-protection is applied only when the vandalism is uncontrollable by blocks, such as vandalism by multiple IPs. (See protection policy) :) -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) We don't semi-protect articles because of one ip's vandalism. It's much better to block the IP, which targets just the problem rather than the article, but there hasn't been sufficient (actually any) warnings given for the blankings. I will warn now on the IP's talk page with the template {{Uw-blank3}} (already done per post above) the full code one would use is {{subst:Uw-blank2|Cooking Mama}}). If it happens again, use {{Uw-blank4}}. If that doesn't put an end to it, simply go to WP:AIV and report the vandalism for a block.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

addition to "Smithfield Foods"

Hello Bob I appreciate your comments about my addition to the Smithfield entry, about farrowing crates and sows. I have tried to shorten my addition and to accommodate your suggestions.

Please let me know if you think it still does not sound sufficiently encyclopedic.

WLF Wildlifefreak (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural land

In the article on meat: Agricultural land includes "tillable" or arable land (used for growing crops) as well as pasture and grazing, and in some cases forest land. The sentence mentions growing crops to use for farm animals, so I assumed it was OK to clarify, as crops are not grown in pastures (or forests). Since less than 50% of agricultural land is arable (less if forest is included), I find it hard to believe 80% of it is used to feed farm animals. The citation has no mention of the percentage of any type of land devoted to feeding farm animals, other than assuming 100% of grazing is for animals.

Also the citation for meat being an abundant source of fat does mention saturated fat (where the sentence does not), but the author has a definite vegetarian POV, and the statement is not factually correct, unless one considers 7 g of fat and 4 g of saturated fat in a 113 g serving to be "abundant". So, I changed the wording to "can" to try to make it more neutral.

Rat

I support your removal of the trivia section on Rat, and I will try to keep an eye on the article in case your action is challenged. Perhaps you may want to make a note of the action on the talk page so it can be documented should somebody attempt to reintroduce it. CopaceticThought (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cat - Pica

Thank you for your comment Bob! Sorry, do you want me to add the infomation or should you? (I am sligtly dylexic!)Emmajaneyoung (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cat - Pica - Edit

Bob,

I have edited the artical. Can yo uplease check it for spelling etc

Thanks for your help

Emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmajaneyoung (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help Bob, I will remember next time about linking to articals. I knew there would be spelling mistakes though!

Emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmajaneyoung (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The chihuahua

Hello, thanks for the heads up (you were lucky to be so quick as I'm assigned dynamic/non-static IPs from my ISP). My first edit was pure instinct, I thought the previous version was rather cheesy or amateurish (the denotation of the wikipedian as her photographer seemed also incorrect to me as he was rather a person who took her photo as opposed to a professional in-house/staff or equivalent photographer. Having read the talk page my eyes rolled a bit in disbelief, still hope you lot can appreciate the current form. In a way I'm glad I ejected myself from the project some time ago ;) (and I've even maintained my anonymity to a large extent by not having had my old username added to WP:MISS) Cheers, 88.148.219.23 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)