User talk:Johnand thegolden

The animal research war

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The animal research war, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.target.com/gp/product/023060014X. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 14:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The animal research war

A tag has been placed on The animal research war, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. — madman bum and angel 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Burlywood 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The animal research war

Hi. If your new plan is to insert this reference randomly in somewhat related articles, it's not going to work. If you have something to add to an article, great, but sticking in a reference to this specific work on the PETA and other pages will just be reverted unless there is some reason for the link to be included. I suggest you discuss and justify your edits on the talk pages of the articles prior to adding the link.Bob98133 (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for quick reply. It isn't a problem with the book, it's just that you've plunked it down as a reference to text that was either already referenced or nobody felt needed a specific reference. You also don't cite any specific page # or quote from the book to suggest it should be a reference for where you put it. I'm not all that familiar with the Wiki rules, but if you click the help link you can navigate to all the rules about how and when to insert references, as well as external links. It also makes people wonder about your relationship with this work since you've tried to place a page about it and links on various pages, so you kind of lose the benefit of the doubt when the link pops up again. Hope this helps. Bob98133 (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose so. The reason pages weren't referenced is that the theme is pervasive. I see other books cited that way. I am a bit confused about the "no one else feeling that a reference was needed" view. Don't we add support for differing views as time goes on? Otherwise we don't make progress. I trust you agree. It seems consistent with the rules...no?

Book

Hi, please don't keep adding references to that book to various articles, as it's beginning to look like spamming, something we experience a lot. It's fine to use it for genuine edits, but not where the sole purpose is to get a mention of the book on a page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I get it. Spamming is not my intent. JG

Misuse of funds reference page number/chapter

Hi there, to settle an issue on the PETA page, could you please look through your copy of the Animal War book and find a page(s) or chapter(s) which specifically mention misuse of funds. Something along the lines of "PETAs use of funding for Xyz is wrong/bad/suspect/etc". I'm aware that this doesn't always seem to be needed, but for some reasons anything not written by PETA or a member of PETA on the PETA page needs a page number apparently. NathanLee (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right, I understand, thanks. /JG (pages 13, 17)

I did this and it was still deleted. why is it not possible to get some balance of opinion on the PeTA site??