User talk:Gingerboy06

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to RSPCA Australia, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what is on that page is uncited and unverifiable. What I have posted is common knowledge and hence, as with common knowledge sources, rarely cited. Gingerboy06 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

RSPCA AUSTRALIA Despite claiming to raise money to care for animals many people are bewildered to discover that few animals remain alive following the minimum holding times. Furthermore the support for and lobbying for breed specific legislation has resulted in many turning away from the organisation as the end result of that legislation is to make it easier to seize and kill peoples pets. Shockingly the organisation refuses to change it's stance.

Please cite sources which contradict any of the above.Gingerboy06 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continues to delete without citing sourcesGingerboy06 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to RSPCA Australia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Dog fighting. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dog fighting. 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. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not unsourced. No sources for the lies written are cited and allowed to stand. Hypocritical editing AGAIN!

Kindly provide verifiable sources for all that is on the pages you altered or I will seek arbitration.Gingerboy06 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]