Jump to content

Talk:Psychiatric assistance dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4.226.18.59 (talk) at 20:01, 31 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDogs Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

There have been several reverts/edits on this page. It appears that there are two very different POVs involved here. Can we agree on a final edit, or do we need to bring in a wikipedia mediator? Ideally we can resolve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.15.78 (talkcontribs) 07:29, January 31, 2007 (UTC)

I can see no way either of you involved in that edit war saw it helping the article in any way. It is obvious that "winning" was the only goal here, and to that point, both of you have violated the three-revert rule, marred the edit history with ugly comments, and made me wonder at what reasoning was involved in making an article that totally repeats several paragraphs. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What ugly comments were made? Please let me know, because I never added anything to the text other than information on the topic.
I was unaware of the three-revert rule before this morning, and I sincerely apologize for violating it.
As for winning being the only goal - I felt that the back and forth reverting was going nowhere, which is why I left a note for the other contributor to look at the talk page and then asked if we could agree on a final edit. It seems like there are two POVs (remaining neutral on this topic is difficult) but I think both POVs can be represented fairly in an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.226.15.235 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's far too much trouble for me to try and figure out who was right or wrong in their edits, though I admit it was mostly User:PSDS who was making the edit summary comments in the history. In any case, I believe I was reasonably frustrated to find the article in complete shambles when I logged on this morning, and if my frustration showed, I apologize only so far as to relieve any hard feelings. Cheers, Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can understand your frustration and I apologize for my part in it.