User talk:Bob98133

/Archive 1 /Archive_2

Undo question

I'm writing to try to understand why this revision was undone. Other than it is on a dog trainer's web page, there is little commerical info here - certainly even less than the link in the same spot that you chose to leave alone. The info provided is more concise, and easier to read than the link that is currently referenced. Can you let me know what you see as the issue? Thanks. MGatian (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)MarieG (cur) (prev) 13:56, 11 March 2010 Bob98133 (talk | contribs) m (20,908 bytes) (Undid revision 349110268 by 76.241.151.223 (talk)rvt commercial EL, see WP:EL) (undo)

No-kill shelter

Hi Bob. I'm fairly sure you posted your notice in the wrong place. In my opinion, it should be listed on WP:AN/EW, not its talk page. You'll probably see more results if you post it there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your compliments about my editing on the Ingrid Newkirk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Bob98133. You have new messages at Rror's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dan Mathews

Hi. Please do add or re-add unsourced material to articles, as you did to the Dan Mathews article. This violates Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and Biographies of Living People. Similarly, please do not remove citation tags that have been placed on material requiring a more verifiable source. Removal of unsourced information and insertion of citation tags is required by WP policy, and is not "vandalism", as you indicated in your Edit Summary. Lastly, the main accompanying photo in articles is indented to the right, not the left. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Peacockish

No problem! You've got to love Wikipedia's vocabulary ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) all this is stupid if yew dont know anything then dont post

Regarding undoing revision 272627966

Hey Bob!

Appreciate your continuous contributions to wikipedia. But, I am a little perplexed about why the revision 272627966 was undid today at [1].

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.209.47 (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

hello, how to solve the fish eye problem in finished leather? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1972 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

oops my bad...

Totally new to all this, in fact I didn't really know that the comments I put there were going to be visible to others... duh I know.

Anyway I went back to find them once I read your message about the strike through I did and couldn't find my edits. The bit about it being a team of mules I found but no others; I'm hoping someone from Wikipedia took care of this. Gads how embarrassing, feel really stupid for not checking to see if anyone else had written in, hadn’t even logged onto the page since then even.

Again, sorry and Thank you for letting me know about this ok. Cheers

carrie

C5ster (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Red meat

No worries Bob. Thanks for taking the time to leave me a nice note. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Link farming

Not true. Sorry you took it like that, I think you acted compulsively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeaa (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fishing

Hmm, what is the problem now Bob? I've been trying to find useful references to the history of fishing. There is not much out there, but I was pleased to find this well constructed blog by a college history professor who writes on the history of fishing in America, including authoritative books. He writes a new article practically every day. I put it in the external links, as I consider it an interesting and professional blog for someone who is interested in fishing. It is not used a reference, where its blog status could be an issue. You removed it without giving a reason, so I'm left wondering what your issue is? --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain please?

Hi Bob,

I wonder if you could explain your reasoning for removing the external link to the official Trunk Monkey ad site from the Trunk Monkey article. Links to an official source for the subject of an article are quite helpful, and I don't see this link anywhere else on the page. Thanks!

Matthiashess (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I would contend that http://www.trunkmonkeyad.com is the official site for the original commercials, as it is run by the Suburban Auto Group of Oregon (not California) for whom the original commercials were produced. It also contains 3 videos not available on trunkmonkey.com. While the site http://www.trunkmonkey.com does contain a lot of useful information, it says that it is mirroring the videos to relieve the official site, thus admitting that it is not the official site.

Matthiashess (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dog fighting

This article can not proof popularity of this blood sport in Russia. Why did you remove my request?Rlu (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

if yew dont know anything about any of this then dont be posting stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggaletta chick (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (Animal rights)

Hi Bob! I just wanted to say a quick thank-you for your comment at Talk:Animal rights. I appreciate the positive feedback. (Based on your interest, I'd also appreciate any advice you might want to give at ALF, if you feel like it.) Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Got your message at my talk and at ALF. Thanks again for the helpful advice, and of course I don't mind that you see it differently than I do. Your idea of putting the quote lower on the page is an interesting one, and might be worth a careful look by us all. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

foie gras

Bob, the foie gras page has been completely re-done. All the work for nothing? Sarah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.134.213 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content forking

Wikipedia:Content forking A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PETA - treatment of animals in some rural shelters

Bob, I have reverted your revert for the following reason: as you restored it, the sentence led one to believe that in that part of the country, killing animals in shelters with rifles or gassing them was something that was routinely done, whereas the original text only led one to believe that it did happen (how often?). Also, the choice of words (see "dilapidated gas chambers") is even more sensationalistiv than the original article. Not good for NPOV. Therefeore, I couldn't let the sentence stand as is. A compromise I could go for would be simply a comment that the animals were killed in ways which were found inhumane. I don't think the reader need all the gory details; they certainly don't need us to amplify even more these gory details. Makes sense?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Down feathers

Thanks! Still have a ways to go. I've been researching all week, and am now trying to make sense out of all my notes!  :) MeegsC | Talk 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had a bizarre message from someone called "Bob", as follows:

"Hi - the web site you are referencing is by PETA, so is considered to be an advocacy web site, which makes it suspect as an EL. If you are intent on putting up info that is on Save the Sheep, find alternate sources for it. Bob98133 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)"

I know that Wikipedia is heavily censored, but this is insane. Are you suggesting that a reference from Amnesty International would be invalid because it's an "advocacy site"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.22.43.76 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Updates Undone

Hi Bob. I've posted a link to some papers and articles primarily written by our president Leif Cocks who is a leading authority on orangutan welfare. He's the head curator of exotic animals at Perth Zoo and very well known within academic circles. My link edit has since been undone and I don't believe that this is fair. I wasn't linking to the home page but directly to the page containing the articles. I can't contact Mr Ollie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrOllie) as when I attempt to "talk" to him there is no way for me to edit on his talk page. EscapedApe (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Thanks for your continued help. Unfortunately when I go to MrOllie's talk page there is no "new section" option. The only tabs that appear are "user page" "discussion" "view source" "history" and "watch". Wow, I'm getting very confused by what is relevant and what is not. We offer more information about the orangutan than most sites (papers, projects - both welfare and habitat protection, images) - more than the "GrungyApe" external link (which I'm NOT suggesting should be removed) but because we also have other information about "the cause" it seems we're not a suitable link. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious! EscapedApe (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of insulting me please read my comments. I said that Wikipedia regularly quotes Amnesty International, which is an advocacy group; consequently, your exclusion of quotes from PETA is unreasonable. Perhaps Wikipedia should say that "according to Amnesty International, torture is cruel...". It's clear that you are trying to exert your own agenda on edits at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.22.43.76 (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Looking good now Bob98133. Thank you for being unbiased. Kelly2357 (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Bob why did you remove the link to Gundogs.com it is a relevant link and was there since 2007. If the site Gundogs.com doesn't warrant an extended link why does gundog magazine, Gundogs Online and Spanial Journal? All Commercial sites And who made you the Gundogs Expert?

m (Undid revision 310162366 by 24.56.212.201 (talk)rvt commercial EL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.212.201 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob in ref to Gundogs.com You are totally incorrect. It is a site that helps people interested in a gun dog to find a breeder, a dog for sale, a place to hunt etc. It is a resource for people hoping to find a gun dog breeder or trainer, a place to hunt, or a person who is trying to sell or purchase a hunting dog find each other. The site does not SELL anything. Unlike Gundogs Online which is totally a commercial site with videos hoping to sell you their products. I suggest you delve into sites more thoroughly. Show one item where someone can purchase something on gundogs.com via the Website, However, I'm sure you can PURCHASE products on gundogs online via a credit card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.212.201 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit of LIMS section

Hi!

You removed most of the material on the LIMS page, citing that the material was from an external source.

I wrote some of that material back in 2006 and I wonder why you removed it. In 2006 it was written for Wikipedia on Wíkipedia and that external source that you cite did not exist then...

What do we do nowP

/Fredrik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmalcus (talk • contribs) 08:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to see what tools are available in a situation like this when a lot of edits have been done after the edit in question. --Fmalcus (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Bob, I take very strong exception to your comment directed at me at talk:animal rights. I feel that it is extremely unfair to characterize me in the way that you did. It is simply not accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I got your reply at my talk. Thank you very much for that. I feel much better to hear that, and I appreciate your good intentions. No hard feelings. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My McDonald's Edits

Hi Bob,

I saw you removed my edits to the McDonald's page. I'm curious to know why. From a financial point of view, the way McDondald's treats its shareholder dividends is pretty unique in the fast food world and helps inform what drives profits and how the company uses those profits. No other fast food company has consistently paid such a dividend to its shareholders. Why did you deem this not notable?Armcharles (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching back out to me. Your comments seem to imply that you misunderstood what I wrote. Here is the text I added (sans formatting):

"McDonald's is notable in the fast food industry for being a S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrat, a company in the S&P 500 that has increased shareholder dividends for 25 consecutive years.[19] This has remained true despite the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, as on September 24th, 2009, McDonald's raised its quarterly cash dividend 10 percent to $.55 per share.[20] This puts McDonald's annual dividend yield at 3.5%, the highest among publicly traded companies in the fast food industry."

As you can see, the point is not that McDonald's is on an "S&P List" (as you wrote on my talk page) the point is that it is one of the few companies to have increased shareholder dividends every single year for the last 25 years. This is particularly notable for a fast food company, and exceptionally notable for a company operating in today's financial environment. I do not believe I was using superlatives (as you wrote) or that my text sounded like "McDonald's promotional copy", as you described it. From a financial point of view, McDonald's standing as a dividend aristocrat is notable and unique and I could not find the information anyhwere in the article. I really do not see what was wrong with my edits. If you could perhaps suggest how I might improve them I would certainly be amenable to hearing your thoughts.Armcharles (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching back out (and sorry I didn't respond right away, I was away from my computer the last two days). I think your suggestions make sense and I'll go ahead and add your revisions back to the McDonald's article. Also, how can we move this discussion to the McDonald's discussion page? Is it just a matter of copy/pasting everything? If so I can that manually myself. If there's a more elegant means, let me know.  :-) Armcharles (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes to the article and also added back the clause about MCD's status as a Dividend Aristocrat. While being on the S&P 500 is one thing, in the finance and investment world, being an S&P Divided Aristocrat is actually a very rare and notable distinction. If you think that it is superfluous or does not add enough to the article please feel to remove it though I personally think it is very notable. Thanks so much for all your help, it is much appreciated.Armcharles (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PETA

I answered your query on my talk page. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re submitted content

Hi Bob,

I have re submitted the content and added references. Can you advise me what to do about the copyright on the cover image that was deleted. ThanksBlueMoon1969 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anglers edit

Hi Bob,

We will go through this to edit out what maybe promotional, but can't do anything until monday.(BlueMoon1969 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Hey man, its long past Monday. What did you do?--71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion section on veganism

You had previous comments on the matter. Extended discussion here: Talk:Veganism#Comments_2. Kellen^T 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chimpanzee

Why does my edit need a reference and not the one the IP made? I did not insert any new claims. Ucucha 14:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Bob98133. You have new messages at Ucucha's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Citation needed

Is preferable, but fact, or even {{cn}} is fine (cn might be better than fact even). If you do not date it SmackBot will do that and change it too. Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

Thankyou for fixing up my mistake on Silk, not quite how I removed all the extra stuff, it wasn't what I meant to do. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Running of the bulls

No problem: thank to you for keeping an eye on it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

cross-contamination

This addition was intended for the article on cross-contamination but that title redirects to foodborne illness.

The problem here is that there is not means of detecting and eliminating cross contamination of products with the same starting point. Taco Bell corn meal for instance used genetically modified corn considered safe for human consumption until it was contaminated through cross-contamination with a genetically modified corn used in animal feed that was not intended for human consumption. As a result customers became victims of an allergic reaction sending them to intensive care. Today the threat is increasing due to corn being used as the starting point for hundreds of non-food products without any guarantee that the livelihood of cross-contamination has been eliminated. Read the CDC's report on Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn 71.100.4.121 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Baiting

If you check out the source again you'll see that it mentions chained animals in an example, it doesn't indicate that having the target chained is part of the meaning. So the way the article is written now is misleading. Take care and have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fur

Hello

Animals rights groups being against killing still means the controversy is to do with the clothing industry because the killing is done for the purposes of the clothing industry. Unless fur is not just farmed for clothing?

In any case, there is nothing controversial about non-human mammal hair in and of itself. The controversy starts when humans try to take this hair. Thus, even if people do significantly take fur for other uses, then the appropriate thing to do would be to create a new heading, ==Human Use== under which both ===Use in Clothing=== and ===Controversy=== would appear. Munci (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Since not all controversy the use of fur by humans is relating to clothing, would you agree with idea of introducing a 'Human Use' or 'Humans and Fur' or similarly titled supersection? Because it's when humans get involved that there is any controversy. Munci (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloodhound Edit

Had you looked more closely you would have seen a reference to Charles IX book La Chasse Royale in the reference list. Not only this but an external link which enables you to look at the book on line. There you can read in (the section on dogs) precisely Charles' opinions about the St Hubert, as I have summarised them. This is more help to anyone wanting to follow up a reference than one usually gets on Wikipedia - particularly in dog articles. Throughout my articles you will see that almost everything that is not common knowledge is referenced, or links to a page where the facts are referenced. Some of the references may not be easy because they are to old books, sometimes in Middle English, but they are there for anyone who takes the trouble. I will revert this edit, and check other articles that I have written.--Cleanboot (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Further thought. I did not remove any referenced content, except when re-editing my own insertions. Generally the reference was put back in another place. I came to the Bloodhound page last year, when there was already a fair bit of material by other people. Some of it I didn't like particularly, because it did make claims (eg about scenting ability) which were unsourced, but I didn't remove any of it, and tried to make my own contributions fit round or within what other people had supplied. It may be that you were looking at what other people had put.--Cleanboot (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

'Iconic' means having the quality of an icon, an image which commands reverence, or which stands for something in some way admirable or impressive. 'Bloodhound' is used as an image (simile, metaphor) to represent keenness of scent and persistence in a search, rather as bulldog and greyhound are used to represent tenacity and speed - hence iconic. I don't think the foxhound or the German Shepherd (for instance) are iconic in this way. If you look at the Bloodhound disambiguation page you’ll see some of the things that have been called ‘bloodhound’. They are given this name because of the image people have of the bloodhound, what it does, what it represents - ie its status as an icon.- even though they may not be at all familiar with the animal itself. I agree the word ‘iconic’ can be used emptily but I had a very precise idea of its appropriateness here. It is an icon throughout the English-speaking world, because ‘bloodhound’ is an English word, and the connotations of ‘blood’ and ‘hound’ contribute to what it represents. I don’t know if ‘Chien de St Hubert’ is used in the same way in France, but I doubt it, though they can use ‘limier’ to mean a detective. Also the image most people have of what the bloodhound is and does derives very much from its use as a man-trailer. This seems to be a British/American tradition, not associated anything like so much, if at all, with the St Hubert, either ancient or modern – at least I have read this from St Hubert enthusiasts. In any case, I am not saying it is not iconic anywhere else. Perhaps I should write a separate section on the bloodhound’s iconic status.

Basically I agree with some of your deletions in this first section. I’m surprised you left ‘ideal’ in. If the bloodhound is the ‘ideal’ scent hound why does anyone ever use the foxhound, beagle etc? However I think a page on a dog breed will be written by people who are enthusiasts for that breed, and perhaps one shouldn’t expect the same level of objectivity as in a scientific subject. I have been reluctant to delete what anyone else has put.

'Effectively died out' is explained lower down. They either died out or, if any were left, were absorbed in the new population, producing the same effect, which I think is a reasonable summary of what Le Couteulx and Brough describe in their books.

'Drawn from life' is referenced to Ash's book, in which he quotes from Thierbuch saying that the pictures of dogs sent by Caius to Gessner were drawn from life - ie not from memory or report, or by copying old pictures, by someone who had never seen them, as they could have been. Durer's famous picture of the rhinoceros was drawn from report, and some of the other pictures in Thierbuch (or Historiae Animalium) are of animals that didn’t exist except in the imagination of a very credulous age - so could not have been drawn from life. We are specifically told that this picture was from life. It is worth making the point to show that the picture of the bloodhound (which I will restore) is a fair representation. The fact that it is pre-photography is hardly relevant. We will not get a picture of what the 16thC bloodhound was like from photography. The mention of the collar and lyam lends support to the point made in the text about the bloodhound’s use as a leash hound. It seems to me to be fair to draw attention to this. None of the other dogs sent by Caius to Gessner is shown with a collar and leash, and the length of the rope suggests it is a 'lyam' to be used for hunting, not a leash for walking a dog. Putting in the condition, “If this drawing is an accurate representation,” is just stating the obvious, and is unnecessary. It is equally obvious that its accuracy will be relative. The assurance that it is ‘drawn from life’, and incidentally the quality of some of the other drawings of dogs sent by Caius to Gessner, gives us some confidence that the drawing is likely to be pretty accurate, though people, including myself, may have their reservations.

I see the point about the evaluative terms. 'Much valued' as against 'valued' is trivial, and the original was harmless - but let it go. Likewise 'great scientist' I can't think there would be many people who'd say that Boyle wasn't a 'great' scientist, but there is a link, so people will be able to check on his reputation. ‘Truly’ is often used as a harmless intensifier, without any logical rigour as regards ‘true’ versus ‘false’; it is equivalent to ‘very’ in contexts such as this, where ‘very international’ would be inappropriate because ‘international’ is an either/or word. By deleting it you made a nonsense because it is clear from earlier in the article that the bloodhound/St Hubert already existed in France, Britain and the USA. ‘Truly international’ was meant to suggest it could now be found almost anywhere in the world. I will change to something like ‘widely spread’.

You say that mentioning Charles’ preference for other hounds is irrelevant. The rationale of the reference is partly that it shows that the St Hubert was not always the highest valued hound in the royal pack, as sometimes stated. Also the fact the the Chien-gris was big and the StH only of medium size suggests developments over the centuries – since the bloodhound is currently the largest of the scent-hounds (and according to some the StH should be even bigger). Certainly very puzzling. The Chien-gris has been suggested by some as the/an ancestor of the bloodhound, and so has the dun-hound. However it would entangle this page too much to explore these relationships. Mentioning the Chien-gris gave the opportunity to provide a link to another page. Links to pages on the Chien-gris, sleuth-hound, limer, rache, hart, which I created, and others like the Talbot, Medieval hunting, etc should provide a fuller picture of the bloodhound and the medieval/Renaissance context within which it was used. This sort of cross-linking is surely the beauty of Wikipedia. The reference to the Greffier was also relevant, but less so, so I won’t go into it.

Ref Above: 'ceste race de Chiens est bonne pour gens qui ont les gouttes, et non pour ceux qui font mestier d'abréger la vie du Cerf' quotation from Charles IX, source of the sentence you excised. I think it reasonable to include references to how the St Hubert was regarded in different periods as part of a historical account. Also amusing, I thought.

What now? If I go through restoring content that I think is justifiable and you delete it because you think it isn’t we are at an impasse. If you have finished your deletions, as you do not appear to be offering any content yourself, you could leave it to me to reedit the page, look at it again, say next week, and if you still have concerns you could communicate them to me, rather than simply making further deletions. We then may be able to reach an accommodation. Would that be acceptable?

NB I have pasted over the whole of the section Bloodhound edit so there is new content in some of what you may have already looked at.--Cleanboot (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor keeps reverting inclusion of copyrighted material

{{help me}} In the Your Mommy Kills Animals (film)article, editor Gooma2 continues to reinsert copyrighted material and does not respond to a request to discuss this. Thanks for help. Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not all users read the talk pages of articles they edit. The best way to send a message to a user is to post on the user's talk page. Write a message on User talk:Gooma2. If you want to use a standard warning for copyright violations, add {{uw-copyright}} by following the instructions on the template page. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 15:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit question again

Hi. the problem with that link: http://www.thedogclass.com/thedogclass115_files/Page409.htm is that it goes to a page created by an individual without any oversight or review. It's her point of view. She can say anything she wants, it's her web site. The other reference: http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+1548&aid=157 appears to be a site, owned by a pet supplier, but devoted to education - things aren't for sale on this web site although there are links to click thru. I admit, it's not a wonderful reference, but it appears that there is a bit more oversight than just a personal web page. Hope that answers your question. If you look at WP:RELIABLE there are more specifics. Bob98133 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It does answer the question. But, the site you left up is directly selling pet supplies of all kinds, plus the tons of link throughs. Simply look to the left side of their page...every single ad is a link to stuff the are selling direct. They are selling all kinds of ""aquaria items" as well. Doctors Fosters and Smith is a big corporate entity selling mostly drug supplies. So if this is the standard, then their reference must be deemed just as dubious as the one you removed. The one you removed is by an experience dog trainer, not just a site that is used to sell supplies and ads. In fact, the one you removed is more concise, and not from a corporate source who's training experience is unknown. All we know is they use the site to sell lots of supplies. They provide no references. It could be an uneducated marketer providing the info.

I guess it seems inconsistent to believe that the corporate entity selling supplies is a better source than the individual trainer providing a resource page. Just because they cleverly name their website "petanswers.com" does not make it more credible. MGatian (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)MGatian

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MGatian (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Bob98133, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Bob98133/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Peta-AP-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Peta-AP-logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin: SNL Appearance with Sarah Palin (Political Views)

When you have time would you take a look at the Alec Baldwin talk page and review a dispute I am having on a contribution? You have contributed to the page in the past two years and I would like you to look over the contribution and give your thoughts on it. Regards, MirelesJ (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I also have complained about the same page. His Political Views are not within WikiPedia rules or guidelines. Someone with high priviliges is protecting his content on both the main page and discussion page.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

in re PETA

An article that you have been involved in editing, People Eating Tasty Animals , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. PrBeacon (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Bob98133. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:ELOFFICIAL

Hi, we seem to have a disagreement in our interpretation of this guideline with respect to this edit. Can you explain how these websites meet WP:ELOFFICIAL, especially the section about minimizing external links? Keep in mind that we generally only link to one or two "official" websites in our external links, and not every website that the article's subject is in control of. Thanks, ThemFromSpace 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

GW Exotics

Bob in regards to the G.W. Exotic Animal park, if you emailed me directly I could provide you with all kinds of proof and references to ad to the site, like 23 perfect inspections since 2006, news articles where the peta alligations were false, and yes our non profit status, lets see you play both sides and put the good proof up as well as the bad [email protected] I also dont see where my stage names need to even be mentioned as they are a part of another whole company. Look at any WP page and see if they report the same thing as our page has turned into, no it is a place where people go to learn not read drama and crap. Or better yet lets see you put on PeTA's page where they kill 97% of all animals brought to them, Please attack both or do the right thing and contact me and let me get you some good facts to report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.60 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe - I've moved this talk to Talk:GW_Exotic_Animal_Foundation#Conflict_of_interest Bob98133 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Erasing external links

Just out of curiosity, what makes my termite control link spam, and all of the other external links about termite control (such as the dr.don site) okay? Willyrubin (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

removed link

Hi Bob I posted a external link yesterday (PVA fishing tips) but you removed it i was just wondering why it was removed?

Cheers

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattv1978 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

why must you continue to demand wrong information?

In regards to the G W Exotic animal park, I am trying to show you that we do not claim to be accreditied by the ZAA we are only an associated member, you have it right on the right side of the page and counterdict yourself on the storyline. Also check out our website and you will see that we are not accredited by the USSAA, we are accreditied by the USZA and UAPPEAL. and if you want to get the story right please note that ref, 7 is wrong as well. I can send you all the inspection reports from 2006 on or you can ref them back to the website as well to show the park has a clean record. I have asked you before to ref, to the daily oklahoman article that all peta alligations were false but you tend to ignore that. Why do you have it out for this park to put all bad things on here, Peta has their own wiki page, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.24 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mousetrap entry

Hi Bob, Thanks for your feedback on the "No View No Touch" mousetrap entry. I edited the piece to eliminate any commercial language. Would you mind reviewing it? Also, is it ok to include the name of the brands that sell the product or is that still too commercially? Thanks for your help-this is my first entry. Kristamrogers (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob, my most recent post was removed again with no explaination. Could you please shed some light? Thank you. --Kristamrogers (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 15:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Your Mommy Kills Animals (film)

The article had been sent to AFD, but within hours I had it cleaned up, expanded and sourced to the point where the nominator withdrew the nomination. I believe it is now at least a C-class... or maybe even a B. I wanted to write and thank you for your good keeping watch and your reverting of controversial edits by the many SPAs. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to dog meat, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal is disruptive and your continued blanking and revert warring will be reported and you may be blocked.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look

Bob, I made some suggestions in the discussion page of the neutering article. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesEllis (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bull/proposed article

Hi. I'm putting together on article at Bull/proposed article to supplant the existing disambig page, which is a magnet for links intended to point to an article on the male of cattle. Since you did quite a bit of work on Bullfighting, I thought you might be able to help quickly punch this up to full-blown article status. Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dog lard in Poland

I have yet to find any other sources, other than the telegraph article, stating that dog lard was ever used for medicinal purposes in Poland. I don't see how one quote from an animal rights fanatic like Renata Mizera constitutes as a valid source. I think a scholarly article or some sort of educational material supporting this evidence would be far more professional and sufficient.

I grew up in Poland, and in a rural area, I studied Polish culture and I have never heard anyone using dog lard for medicine. My grandmother was a folk medicine person. She loved her dogs!

Its a shame that one horrible incident by a crazy woman and her daughter should be taken as face value for Polish culture. Dogs are very much thought of as pets or at least work animals not meant for slaughter in Poland.

Now I have seen people quote this wikipedia entry on several sites stating that this is true to Polish culture when I have yet to find any other evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.248.241 (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

foie gras & wine?

hi there, I noticed you were involved in a discussion with Theresa Knott on the Foie Gras page regarding the removal of the wine image and mentions. I also noticed it has been put back, and my attempts to remove it were met with threats as you can see on my talk page. In case you were still interested in the issue, here is the conversation in question: [[2]] 174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help on placing info

Hello Bob

I want to add a list of open admission no-kill shelters linked to their sites with the 2010 kill rate. I would use a table. I blog on no-kill and it is difficult to figure out which no-kill shelters are actually open admission. I have the info, but need to know where is the best place to put it. I would have a short intro explaining that open admission shelters never say no and are usually municipal shelters or shelters contracted by a municipality to deal with roaming dogs and cats. Thank you. HoosierGal (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Marilyn Knapp Litt HoosierGal You can message me on FaceBook without friending me. thx

PETA comment

Your comment is correct. Someone with high priviliges is editing the PETA page. If you can help, please do so. I'm low on the totem pole.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Peta-AP-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Peta-AP-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Pigs do eat human feces

Now Bob98133, I am convinced. I have seen it with my very own eyes. Now you're still free to do the experiment: Get a plate (or tin or whatever) of human feces and keep it in front of any domestic pig, and see for yourself. However I am not obssessed with including this fact in the article. If you want to believe pigs don't eat human feces, that's your problem. And please see Pig toilet. Myyyyy (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

GW Exotic Animal Park

Bob, I work for the park and everytime we update our wiki page, the haters change it to make us look terrible. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.99.173 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Yep, I'd be happy to help you. I'm a little slammed today, but I'll give you some ideas to think about 'til I can concentrate on this fully for more than a couple of minutes. First of all, any chance you'd be willing to open a Wiki account so you have an actual name? Editors and others feel more comfortable if they're talking to a real person with an account rather than an IP address. You can make up anything you want, it just helps with a feeling of community. Secondly, I would definitely read the page i mentioned earlier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Good that you work for the park, but that means you have a bias (who doesn't?), and the "haters" (as you call them, it's all perspective) have theirs. You're probably not thrilled with the "controversy" section, but simple fact is, most good Wiki pages do have that section. The key is to make sure that everything that's written can be supported by a solid source. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCE. Since you work for the park, you're not a valid source. That's not to say you can't contribute to this page, but you need a third party source if you're going to post things that might have a controversy attached to it. The "haters" have to do the same thing. So take a look again at your page and let's figure out what it is we can do to make it better and in keeping with Wiki rules. Kind regards Bob98133 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Dog_skinned_for_fur.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dog_skinned_for_fur.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Calliopejen1. I don't have a valid copyrighting tag for this photo, but can't seem to figure out how to delete it altogether. Please help, and thanks. Never have had to do this before... Bob98133 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Animal rights

You are receiving this semi-automated message because you are a participant of WikiProject Animal rights. If the project is not on your watchlist or you have not visited the WikiProject recently you will not be aware of some of the changes that I have made to the pages, or aware of an a issue that has been raised about my attempt to re-categorise some of the project related articles. Please revisit the project talk page to add your input. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kfc headstone closeup.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kfc headstone closeup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DeFlocked Cobb.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:DeFlocked Cobb.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DeFlocked Mamet.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:DeFlocked Mamet.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DeFlocked Rupert.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:DeFlocked Rupert.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DeFlocked Tucker.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:DeFlocked Tucker.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Foie Gras article

Hiya, I know you've had some involvement wit the Foie Gras article in the past. Just wanted to alert you to this change. The editor is discussing it with me on my talk, citing MEDRS concerns. petrarchan47tc 05:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is being handled at WT:MED petrarchan47tc 21:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "[http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism The Threat of Eco-Terrorism],"] February 12, 2002.</ref> PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions and does

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bob98133. 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)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bob98133. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)