Talk:Pet sitting

Guidebook

For the anonymous editors: What you are writing here is a sort of guidebook for people looking for a pet sitter. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a guidebook, but rather an encyclopedia. Your websites function as wonderful guides, and don't need to be reproduced here. Dig? Watchsmart 00:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We only provided general reference ideas to describe pet sitting. The items we listed are short, concise, and unbiased. It's the stuff I'd look for if I was looking up "pet sitting" in an encyclopedia. The vote as to "keep" this information because it's an important topic, but "needs to be expanded". We attempted to do that through research.

I'm not sure what the intent was of the author of the version that talks about pet sitting only in the U.K., but that article sounds very biased and doesn't provide any information other than a definition and some opinions. And it's completely focused on something that seems to have happened in the U.K. - about things of which I've never even heard of and I'm a member of at least 10 pet sitting organizations - some of which are worldwide. So it can't be very public and publicised accepted knowledge. Plus there are typos and poor grammer.

Wikipedia is not meant as a dictionary, and it's not a forum for biased opinions. It's meant for a reference source. I really don't think anyone would find that U.K. version that you keep putting back in very informative. So if you would like to tell me what parts you don't like of our version, I'd be happy to refine them to make them informative but not offensive. Or if you have some sources on the whole UK issue, I'll summarize that and add info about it. And feel free to point out the wikipedia guidelines you think that we've not quite followed so we can study them further.

l8rgator 16 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.118.143.208 (talk • contribs).

Okay. Check out, first of all, check out the guidelines on original research. If you are creating the page based on your surveys of people in your forum, them you are creating original research. Check out the guides for Neutral Point of View. Do you think that perhaps your article reads like a pamphlet or advertisement for pet sitting, rather than an encyclopedia? Why are you using bolded phrases? Do you see that elsewhere here? Why do you use phrases like "attractive benefits"? Why do you use bullet lists when you could use paragraphs?

There are two or three editors reverting your changes. Watchsmart 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a well-written article and very informative. I agree that it should be kept, and not reverted back to the biased blurb about UK-only petsitting. Plaster Shark 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right! I think that the spam links have stopped showing up, also. It's all good. Watchsmart 00:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

L8rgator 08:30, 18 June 2007 I made changes to the Licensing portion added by another user. The original confused an occupational license with a business license. An occupational license is a license required specifically for certain occupations and is obtained either by education, experience and testing or by paying for the license. That type of license is not currently required or available in most areas specifically for pet sitters (and no states that I know of). However, it is required in a few cities and counties - especially for sitters that do dog walking. A business license is not industry/occupation specific. Most sitters do have this, and many are required to have this. However, not all areas offer licenses, nor do all require it. Definition of occupational permit found at www.sphinxlegal.com/sphinx/content/freeresources/glossaryresult.asp , rest from petsits.com private materials.