User talk:Dodo bird: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Category:Vegan pet food brands. |
|||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{|align="right" |
|||
{{User page}} |
|||
|- |
|||
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodo_bird&action=history archive] |
|||
|} |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] == |
|||
== [[Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]] == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for tagging the article following its major re-write, which was also worrying me when I read it earlier. The editor who has done this appears not to have edited any other article, and the whole thing reads as if someone from the RSPCA has re-written it in line with policy. Indeed, the first edit summary they left yesterday states "review as part of branding", which sounds very suspicious. I see you've messaged the editor, but if there is no response I would have thought there is a good case for simply reverting to what went before. '''<font color="green">[[User:Timothy Titus|Timothy Titus]]</font> ''<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Timothy Titus|Talk To TT]]</font>''</sup>''' 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692009577 --> |
|||
:They removed some stuffs that could be worth restoring but the edits are otherwise ok. The previous version isn't much better in terms of the advert-like tone. I'll wait a couple of days more to see if they intend to continue editing.--[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]] ([[User talk:Dodo bird#top|talk]]) 12:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! == |
|||
== Maine Coon == |
|||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Dodo bird. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|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. |
|||
Hi there, Dodo bird. I saw the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Maine_Coon&action=historysubmit&diff=380096499&oldid=380035765 edit] you made at the Maine Coon article, and am curious as to whether you can redo the reference. On Wikipedia, it can't simply be the title of the book. We need authors, publishers, edition (if applicable), page number, etc. For the citation template, please see [[WP:CIT]] and look at the templates for books. Thanks. If you need help/have questions, feel free to let me know. Happy editing! – <font color="#000066">[[User:Ms. Sarita|'''Ms. Sarita''']]</font> <sup><font color="#0000FF">[[User talk:Ms. Sarita|'''''Confer''''']]</font></sup> 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Okay. It's done.--[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]] ([[User talk:Dodo bird#top|talk]]) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Looks perfect. Thank you for taking the time to do that. And thank you for expanding and working on the Health section of the article. It's looking great! – <font color="#000066">[[User:Ms. Sarita|'''Ms. Sarita''']]</font> <sup><font color="#0000FF">[[User talk:Ms. Sarita|'''''Confer''''']]</font></sup> 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
== Question your revert == |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Greetings Dodo bird, |
|||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} |
|||
On the [[List of Fatal Dog Attacks]] page: you undid my edit, which I stand by for several reasons. Yes, the list is indeed necessarily incomplete. Yes, I did notice. However, to include 1988 then skip 16 years is arbitrary. Why not include 1976? Or 1982? etc? It doesn't make sense unless the author has made a decision to include a specific breed of dog (Black Lab) in the list. Which means the author inserted his POV. |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/14&oldid=750562171 --> |
|||
In addition, the information for 1988 is incomplete. Google news archives has listed at least three additional dog fatalities in 1988, [http://fatalpitbullattacks.com/ as posted here]. Perhaps Wikipedia should not be in the business of maintaining lists, unless we do it accurately. [[User:Woodlandpath|Woodlandpath]] ([[User talk:Woodlandpath|talk]]) 04:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Category:Vegan pet food brands]]== |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]] |
|||
A tag has been placed on [[:Category:Vegan pet food brands]] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a [[:Category:Disambiguation categories|disambiguation category]], a [[:Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories|category redirect]], under discussion at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under [[WP:CSD#C1|section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. |
|||
:If there is a POV problem with an incomplete list, it would also apply to the list for 2005-2010 as there is no way to verify that it is complete either. I've already [[Talk:List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Proposed_Deletion|argued for the deletion of the article]] partly because its incompleteness causes a POV problem, but apparently others don't think so. --[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]] ([[User talk:Dodo bird#top|talk]]) 05:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:Category:Vegan pet food brands|visiting the page]] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:Explicit|<span style="color:#000000">✗</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color:white;background:black;font-family:felix titling;font-size:80%">plicit</span>]] 00:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Greetings Dodo, |
|||
I tend to agree that the list itself should be deleted. First, the page refers to a 2009 version of the Clifton Report, which is updated monthly. Secondly, when Google made news archives available the entire historical record of dog bites prior to 2005 became available, so the wp list is woefully inadequate. The fatal attack record for one breed, Pit Bulls, is available and is collated [http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/index.php Fatal Pit Bull Attacks], which makes the wp list incomplete and therefore non-encyclopedic. I also looked at the wp [[Dog_attack|Dog Attack]] page and see similar shortcomings and errors, especially on the discussion page. I'm not sure how conversant you are with the pit bull issue generally, but it has taken on some of the polarizing aspects of the gun control debate. Pit bulls comprise 50-75% of the population of humane shelters and dogfighters and other pit bull advocates have attempted to stop any kind of legislation. Much of the discussion on the two wp pages has been unsigned and appears to come from the pit bull advocates. They introduced erroneous information and made claims that I can prove to be false. Fortunately the wp editors kept the page intact in most cases. One of the claims of pit bull proponents is that "All dogs bite," which is simply a way of divert attention from the fact that the vast majority of deadly canine attacks are by pit bulls. Pit advocates use every opportunity to steer the data away from pit bulls and would have us believe that chihuahuas and Jack Russells are just as dangerous. (Yes, they actually make that claim.) That's why the black lab data from 1988 is questionable. --[[User:Woodlandpath|Woodlandpath]] ([[User talk:Woodlandpath|talk]]) 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Eva Cassidy|our songbird]] == |
|||
I think you may be right, but your source should be substitute for the NYT. See my talk page. [[Special:Contributions/24.177.99.126|24.177.99.126]] ([[User talk:24.177.99.126|talk]]) 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Siamese Cat == |
|||
In reply to your comment that my edit contradicts the Swedish study, I do not believe it does, for the following reasons: |
|||
The study includes only data from insured cats, only cats up to 13 years, and is over-represented by pure-bred cats (estimated over 70% of non-pure-bred cats are not insured). The average life-span of all domestic cats is roughly 12 years, however the study indicates that 42% of Siamese cats are still alive at 12.5 years, and the median life-span is given as being between 10 and 12.5, implying they live to approximately 20 on average, which is significantly higher than the average. Furthermore, estimating a median life-span with this sample is only useful for insurance purposes, not scientific purposes. |
|||
According to the insurance data as I read it, the Siamese cat prior to their 13th year has a higher mortality rate than other insured, pre-bred cats, prior to their 13th year. It doesn't say anything about their mortality rates afterwards. Take humans as an example: they have a higher mortality rate when younger (for a variety of reasons: genetic flaws, infections, trauma due to accidents and falls), but a human which gets through its teenage years is extremely likely to reach old-age, as the mortality rate drops. Furthermore, the mortality-rate young in life can not be extrapolated to later life, and therefore says nothing about how old the cat will become. |
|||
Again, I think the study is - from a scientific standpoint - significantly flawed, and only useful for insurance purposes. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sowen222|Sowen222]] ([[User talk:Sowen222|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sowen222|contribs]]) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==[[WP:User page]]== |
|||
You might consider writing something (anything) on your user page. This will get the red out of edit histories. Happy editing. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the suggestion. But I actually like it like this.--[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]] ([[User talk:Dodo bird#top|talk]]) 14:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== March 2012 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Pedigree_Dogs_Exposed_-_Three_Years_On]], without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tdel2 --> ''Please do not remove the unreferenced tag. Every Wikipedia requires a reference. There is not such exception. At least a few references are required to establish notability.'' <span style="border: 1px solid #C90016;background:white">[[User:Kinkreet|<b><font style="colour:#002147;">Kinkreet</font></b>]][[User talk:Kinkreet|<sup><font style="colour:#993333;">~♥moshi moshi♥~</font></sup>]]</span> 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Talkback== |
|||
{{talkback|Kinkreet|ts=23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)}} |
|||
<span style="border: 1px solid #C90016;background:white">[[User:Kinkreet|<b><font style="colour:#002147;">Kinkreet</font></b>]][[User talk:Kinkreet|<sup><font style="colour:#993333;">~♥moshi moshi♥~</font></sup>]]</span> 23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Disambiguation link notification for April 4== |
|||
Hi. When you recently edited [[Munchkin (cat)]], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages [[Wizard of Oz]] and [[Viability]] ([[tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Munchkin_%28cat%29|check to confirm]] | [[tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Munchkin_%28cat%29|fix with Dab solver]]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].</small> |
|||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==dog breeds== |
|||
(I'm adding the removed comments on your talk page here so that the whole discussion is present.--[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]] ([[User talk:Dodo bird#top|talk]]) 03:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)) |
|||
Do you want to declare your connection to the site? Almost everything you have added is from that site, which does not meet [[WP:RELIABLESOURCES]] standard.--[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]] ([[User talk:Dodo bird|talk]]) 01:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
(You left your comment on my user page instead of my talk page. I'm moving it here. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)) |
|||
:It does meet the standard for a reliable source, additionally I take pains taking effort to improve upon every article that I come upon in the areas of adding sections, formatting, re-wording etc.. It makes no difference if I choose to use the same source over and over as it is a good resource for knowledge and the vast majority of the articles are considerably better written and more informative than the wiki. Lest you feel that I am not improving the articles or not adding information or facts that were not already present.. |
|||
::It doesn't. Have you read the [[WP:RELIABLESOURCES]] link? "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The site has no authorship information. If you are "a university professor specializing in Cynology", sign your name to the articles so that we can judge whether you meet the reliable source standard. Using the same source over and over with a source that does not meet the reliable source standard is just [[WP:REFSPAM|citation spamming]]. You have not answered whether you are connected to the site. Do you want to answer that? --[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]] ([[User talk:Dodo bird|talk]]) 02:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry for dropping that in the wrong spot on your page..I clicked the name as opposed to the talk hyperlink. In response to: "It doesn't. Have you read the WP:RELIABLESOURCES link?" I have and my interpretation of it is that it is not a questionable source, and in many cases kicks back to and references the great authors of the past; Shaw, Kimble, Cauis etc. using their arguments, observations and assertions to formulate excellent theories and make previously overlooked connections. You are more than welcome to read through the texts before making a declarative judgement without properly evaluating the source and quality of the source of its entirety. Additionally have you actually taken the time to read through the volumes of garbage and misinformation present in the majority of the wiki articles associated with breeds? I have removed links to sites selling puppies, links to foreign language porn, links to sites with 1 paragraph of history that was likely copied from the wiki to begin with.. All were touted as reliable sources and some of which have stood since 2007.. |
|||
:::Additionally I have made great improvements in every article I edit. Many of which don't even have history sections, health sections or start out with the "The blank is a dog from Germany" that's the intro and leave it at that. Additionally some articles are so biased and hate filled (one a bulldog) in which it was obvious that competing breed clubs were logging on and slander each other and reverting edits.. Citing incest among breed founders and other items unrelated to the breed at hand. In response to your question I am under no mandate to answer whether or not I have any association with any website, nor am I obligated to sign my legal name to any work here, there or anywhere. When judging that site in context with the vast majority of citations provided as credible sources there really is not contest. I could fill the entirety of this page and probably twenty more with the garbage that I removed from most of those pages. Additionally I feel in no way is the wiki being degraded, damaged or otherwise harmed as previously stated in all cases the articles are improved. What you are essentially asking is that I search the web in a circuitous fashion to find sources that will essentially regurgitate the information that I can find in one place so as to add variety to my citations; which I feel is ludicrous. I have no desire to re-invent the wheel, nor go miles out of the way to accomplish the simple goal of adding to and improving the wiki. |
|||
:::I suppose I could switch gears to appease you and start citing the website dogbreedinfo in every article I come across instead (nope wait that's been done already -hundreds of times); an apparent reliable source in your opinion. My take on the citations is this, find the best source possible, and if possible upgrade questionable ones, so as to provide some factual basis for the wiki. If that is not possible then the questionable one will unfortunately have to stand until a more reliable one comes along or presents itself (ie. provide the best that you can to the wiki). In an idealistic world it would be excellent if every piece of information needed to make the dog breed wiki's all it could be was printed in encyclopedia Britanica and I could just reference that each and every time. Unfortunately, however, it is not and much of the information, especially in regards, to making intelligent arguments as to the creation and development of breeds hundreds of years old, that were poorly documented, requires a bit of scholarly work and a sound ability to track that breeds development through cultural and climatic changes in early hunter gatherer man as well as through Geo-political changes, wars, and changes in culture and technology. Add to that the fact that the decisive origin of many breeds is nothing more than pure overly regurgitated speculation spread about the web in haphazard fashion and it becomes refreshing to find a source that explains each theory and/or it's likelihood. |
|||
:::I mean if we want to go on a citation crushing party we sure can, but I'll be up all night and probably the rest of the week, weeding out every questionable source, puppy selling site, porn site, script kiddy site etc from 500+ dog breeds. I welcome you to improve upon the wiki and if you can find better sources for the information then make the notations and change the articles. Not trying to be a dick at all but in the grand scheme of things, the articles have been undeniably improved and a huge variety of purely self serving, non informative spam sites have been removed from external links, further reading, additional info, as well as citations like "the blank is a large dog". Unfortunately with the huge amount of breeds, and the apparent state of disrepair that most of them are in, it makes a splash when somebody like me comes in and starts making edits and that's ok. The aim is to improve them and clean out a lot of the junk and hopefully get some other folks motivated to the point that they will either contribute, as what I added created interest or to spite me with a better source; in either instance the wiki benefits. |
|||
:::On a side note read the article on the BBC special "dog breeds exposed" (your apparent favorite edit), I have the video and have followed that story since it came out..Your article is good, and an informative read; albeit the odd spelling.. programme, colour, etc. nice job on that one. That is the quality that I am trying to get some of these breed articles up to. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zeroyon01|Zeroyon01]] ([[User talk:Zeroyon01|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zeroyon01|contribs]]) 03:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I find it sad, truly sad that people such as yourself drive people away from the wiki and vilify them when they are trying to improve the community. |
|||
Latest revision as of 00:50, 6 December 2024
| archive |
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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Dodo bird. 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)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Vegan pet food brands
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Category:Vegan pet food brands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 00:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)