User talk:MikeHobday/1

Hunting Act 2004

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Computerjoe 13:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the template you're trying to subst in here. Nevertheless, aren't all users POV users, in that all users have a POV? If you mean "user who violates NPOV in their edits" then I entirely disagree - all the edits I've seen seek to flesh out one side of the argument while scrupulously maintaining NPOV. If you disagree with an edit please deal with it by the usual means (your own edits, Talk pages etc) and not by saying rude things on Talk pages. — ciphergoth 13:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the wrong name. I will change that. The user's edits to Hunting Act 2004 after further reading do not seem to be POV. I meant a user who violates NPOV. Anyhow, in my view they were in written in the wrong style - so I stand by my revert but withdraw any warning messages. I'm sorry for the confusion I've caused. Computerjoe 13:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Noting that, one month later, no one has significantly changed the style of the text in question. (though there may always be scope to do so) MikeHobday 14:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

hello

HI.. i asked u a question a while ago - about fox hunting in australia.. and as i do my wiki in batches- ( dictated on how oft i get reverted and/or boredem) i dont know if you answered me or not??? and i cant find what i actually wrote (too old???) Can you refresh me?? thanks Cilstr 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If your question was this one[1], then the answer is that I have no idea. MikeHobday 07:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hare coursing

Hello mike,i have done my best to tidy up the hare coursing article and tried to get it to NPOV.Feel free to tidy it up more and incorporate my points.Sorry if i have confused you!I did not mean to have a large history on that pageIan Davies Friend 19:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A difficult process, but I think we are getting there together! MikeHobday 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining editorial quality on hare coursing seems to be a monumental task at the moment; it's more than I can face for sure. I am tempted to suggest that we ask some of the cooler-headed pro-hunt editors like User:Rorybowman to help out just to reduce the workload - what do you think? — ciphergoth 09:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. You know him better than me I feel. Do you want to approach him? MikeHobday 12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Inexperienced?Dont think so cip or mike(maybe cip=mike????),considering i am involved in hare coursing as long as i can remember and know more about the sport than the two of you will ever know ,no offence,i would have to disagree.I think that maybe you should stick to the british coursing bit not the Irish. I can clearly see that you are ganging up on me?Trying to add a bit of wood to the fire,eh?Trying to agitate me.Rorybowman is not involved in coursing from what i can make out but then again i could be wrong. Mike your organisations members have no motive for "stalking" hunters around the countryside and calling us abusers,which is a very strong word,which is funny in a way as the cooper and sires articles prove that only a few actually have motives(fromer huntsmen who maybe were mistreated in some way etc.) and like i have pointed out on the talk page that they recruit people who do not have any motive for hating hunters and in fact do not know much about hunting when they first join.I think it has comparissons to a cult.I guarantee you that you dont have people queing up to join your organisation,the truth is basically that nobody really cares mike. Now enough of this,lets make the article 50-50 and fair? Ian Davies Friend 18:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean only that you perhaps aren't an experienced Wikipedia editor; I'm not saying anything about your coursing experience. When I asked Rorybowman for help I thought he was also pro-coursing; I'm happy to get help from other pro-coursing people to help maintain editorial quality. Since both of us edit under our real names and have left a decent trace in the world, it's pretty easy to check that neither of us is the other's sock puppet. — ciphergoth 20:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok.I feel very strong towards leaving peoples personal lives out of this.Im sure you agree.I feel that the article was more in favour of anti-coursing.So i change it so that people will get a good idea of the good side of coursing.Now time to tidy up the article!Ian davies friend 20:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian, Perhaps we have different understandings of the meaning of 'NPOV'? Perhaps my understanding is wrong? It is clear to me that you have added considerable useful information to the hare coursing article. But you occasionally have a tendency to repeat yourself. And occasionally (it seems to me) to lose your temper. Apologies if this isn't true. I am not sure why your response to the '40 hares die at Wexford' story is not to research the issue and see if there is an alternative explanation for the deaths but to be slightly personal and abusive. Clearly, we have different views. But I hope that we can both agree on factual points. MikeHobday 23:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike i have tidied it up considerbly.In response to your claim that im "slightly personal and abusive" is totally wrong not once have i called you something bad or gone against the wikipedia guidelines (except for NPOV which is obviously not abusive) as to me they are personal issues.Believe it or not Mike but i agree with you on the Wexford issue but to me it was a virus not mypotaphy(spelt wrong).Again i think this article is finished and we should move on.Ian davies friend 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baiting

Welcome aboard, I thought I was going to be the sole member -:) SirIsaacBrock 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

League Against Cruel Sports

Is it a charity Category:Animal charities? It should fit into one of the many sub +cats Category:Animal welfare. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Difficult one. It is neither an animal rights group nor a charity, though it does own a charity for some of its operations (quite a common arrangement amongst UK campaigning groups). In US terms, it is "not for profit." I wonder if there should be a sub category for animal welfare groups, which I could help to populate? MikeHobday 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamish Ross

Look mate, ffs stop putting these ridiculous sockpuppet tags on people's user pages. It's really not on. the days of Hamihs Ross' vandalism have long passed, just let us get on with campaigning for the upkeep of valid articles please.--84.64.33.168 13:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Hamish Ross has been blocked for seven days till April 19 [2]. Why not respect that decision, cool down for a couple of days and come back positively then? Otherwise, I fear that stronger penalities might be imposed. MikeHobday 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusations

Both me and User:Gypsy Eyes are the same person. We are emphatically not to do with Hamish Ross, and I would like you to retract these accusations. (I'm nothing to do with the above person either) 83.146.55.85 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to share a strong interest in the late Nudds image and the late Hamish Ross page. You also seem to share a radical editting style to other people's user pages. Saying that it is "suspected" that you "may" be a "sock puppet or impersonator" does not seem unreasonable. However, you might want to read the last sentence of Wp:sockpuppet#When questions arise. If I am wrong, then of course I apologise. MikeHobday 16:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, fair enough - I've asked the people there to prove that I'm not a sockpuppet, so hopefully we should have confirmation in a couple of days anwyay. 83.146.55.85 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad it's all sorted now - I'll be using this user account from now on to simplify things (especially as I'm on a dynamic ip and that IP has now disappeared into the ether...) Gypsy Eyes 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Thanks for you comments here. It's nice to see a few isolated voices of sanity on an issue that has been causing me a lot of wiki-stress recently. It looks like the "cabal" of wikipologists will prevail this time (as is the nature of the adverse selection of DRV), but the responses of a few experienced wikipedians (yourself included) prevented me from taking a very long hiatus from the project over this issue. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Upland hunting

Thanks for the feedback. I was not aware that Upland hunting was a US term. The techniques described are correct for Upland hunting in the US. If the techniques are US specific and the name is as well, is that bad? I mean if it is an US activity, what else other than the tactics used by persons in the US should be included? I have added a reference to the UK that may serve. Take a look. Thanks.--Counsel 20:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was cleaning up my page and noticed that I did not answer your question. You asked 'Do I deduce, from your helpful reference to UK rough shooting that 'upland hunting' does not include the UK 'driven shooting' where lines of (human) beaters flush the birds into the air to be shot? MikeHobday 06:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)'. The short answer is yes. There are some instances of what is called a cornfield drive in which pheasants are driven, but these are rare and generally involve wild birds rather than pen-raised birds. Generally a cornfield drive is considered something of a relic of the past where farmers attempted to put some extra meet on the table after harvesting a crop. Even in such circumstances, the shoot was often organized by placing shooter around the field and sending dogs in to flush the birds out. We do not have the tradition of a large driven shoot as I understand you do in the UK. Nor do we have the tradition of tower-shooting. I generally distinguish a shoot from a hunt in that a shoot requires little questing for game and is generally less sporting. I am sure that some would lump a drive in with "Upland Hunting" as the quarry is the same. That said the vast, vast majority of upland hunting in the United States involves pursuing wild game birds in their native habitat with a flushing dog or pointer. While on the subject, one difference between Upland Hunting and rough shooting is that dogs in the US that are trained to find birds are expected to ignore other small game such as rabbits or hares. A hunters whose dog pointed a rabbit should expect a good deal of ribbing from his buddies after the hunt. I understand that dogs there are considered praiseworthy for finding both.--Counsel 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-hunting

Hello, Mike! If you would, could you look at the anti-hunting article again? I added some references under the current issues section, regarding unintended consequences. Maybe you can find some others?

Somewhere between our points of view is probably a NPOV, especially as describes recent (past 40 years of) history of the antihunting movement, so I was wondering if you could write up something describing it, using a footnote reference style if possible. Some of these articles are a mishmash of half done references.

Also, I'm thinking of moving and expanding a couple of words I wrote on the hunting article and was wondering if Wikipedia approved of such moves? It is all so confusing for a newby such as myself. Trilobitealive 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

anti-hunting Next Question

Mike, if you would from your perspective as an expert in the field can you concisely tell me (very briefly please), with substantiated references, what exactly is the unifying perspective and goal of anti-hunting? To me it seems that anti-hunting laws have as their end goal the desire to prevent hunting for prevention's sake as opposed to conservation laws which coincidentally prevent or regulate hunting for other reasons. Trilobitealive 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will not think this reply trite, but what makes you so sure that the anti hunting movement has a "unifying perspective and goal", other than (obviously) to promote animal welfare or to oppose hunting? I have no reason to suspect that it does. To a degree, I suspect that the extent to which any movement has such a perspective and goal is demonstrated by the extent to which it is able to form stable coalitions. MikeHobday 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I think that as the world becomes more politicized anti-hunting becomes the 'line in the sand' or shibboleth which marks the difference between two large and often overlapping groups of people. For instance I'm pro hunting in the sense of stalking animals for food or to improve the herd but am anti hunting in the sense of disliking all those rich Brits on horses out damaging people's gardens and scaring the livestock. But if I'm forced to choose sides then I'd have to choose the pro side long enough to defend against the abolitionists...then I'd regulate from within.

Concerning differences of opinion on the Hunting article

1) I've posted my reasons for reverting your reversion...this gets complicated as I view you as a mentor and probably a good role model in terms of learning bold Wikipedia editing...in large part the reversion is because I agree with your presentation of need to remove politicization but I believe you're uneccessarily injecting your politics. 2) I didn't revert your changes of the word harvest nor the other nibble around the introduction yet as I think this might be a case where we are divided by a common language. In the American vernacular harvest is the standard term. We are not out to harm animals, in fact a large number of us traditional conservationists think of controlled harvest as being the only way to live up to the evolutionary responsibility our species took when we chose to become the world's apex preditor after the Younger Dryas. I will demonstrate why this becomes important with 3 US state or federal government references to the standard term, plus a radical politicized reference opposing it: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/populationstatus2005/huntingstats.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2002/n02-011.html http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/harvest/1999/99cougar.htm http://www.veganvanguard.com/vegism/hunting_lexicon.html

In any regard, I value your editing skill and your forthrightness to explain your stance and hope to continue to learn from you. Trilobitealive 00:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Trilobitealive 00:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Divided by a common language?

I found an interesting link with some comments by Dawkins on the difference between UK and US languages and cultures: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/divided_by_a_co.html#more The more I think about it the more I wonder if there should be a wider recognition that the two are not just dialects but have evolved separately for 200 years, since The War of 1812, which was our second war for independence. Trilobitealive 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Divided in many ways. Interesting that the references in Wikipedia to the 1812 war says, "The war is scarcely remembered in Britain because it was overshadowed by the far larger, more dramatic and more influential triumph over Napoleon." If one said, "scarcely taught", that would be an exaggeration! You've seen the article American english I assume? Hunting is, of course, a good example of the same word having significantly different meanings. MikeHobday 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Trophy hunting

Mike I thought you might want to weigh in on Talk:Trophy hunting. This little article seems to be going nowhere and probably needs to be rolled into the larger article. Trilobitealive 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

LACS article

Thanks for your help with user PBurns3711 - i was trying to expand the article when this guy started to get involved putting in blatant anti-LACS propaganda and displaying all the intelligence to be expected from one of his beliefs.

I am determined that the LACS article reflect this important organisation properly and that any criticism be devoid of the manifest bias exemplified by this seemingly rather unfortunate individual and any of his ilk.

To this end your assistance is greatly appreciated.

All the best GWP 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The League

Thanks Mike - I will add all of the above when time permits.

For now, user PBurns3711 is back on the page deleting wholesale accurate information and replacing it with loaded, lop-sided anti-League propaganda.

I'd appreciate your continued support in this matter as he actually seems to have upped the ante and his last move was to delete the entire history and replace with pro-hunt fallacy.

Cheers GWP 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about philosophical orientation

Mike, could you tell me if the LACS is an animal Rights group or an animal Welfare group? Thanks. Trilobitealive 05:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an animal welfare group. For example, I've just done a search of the website.[3] There are 141 pages with the phrase "animal welfare" and four with the phrase "animal rights" (of which two use the phrase only to contrast it with the League's position). MikeHobday 08:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mike

It was a pleasure learning about Wikipedia editing. You are a good teacher and I wanted to give you my personal warmest regards. I made the mistake of trying to do some needed edits on the Animal rights page and learned that the rules do not apply equally to all. It seems that at least one member of the administration here is dangeously radical. I'm now convinced that he/she is a games player who treats junior editors much the same as your British fox hunters treat their foxes. He/she appears fully beyond the edge and, looking at their history on admin pages and the google record, has a habit of nasty retaliations against those who challenge him/her. Please pass on my regards to Counsel and tell him that I think the both of you can keep one another straight. (One personal note of caution for any AW person or conservationist who sometimes associates with AR people: according to historian Crane Brinton, when one is a moderate reformer one's worst enemies and the people most dangerous to them are not those more conservative, but rather the radicals.) ;^) Trilobitealive 15:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks. I am very sorry to see you leave Wikipedia. I have passed your remarks to User:Floridan. I think your cautionary note is true (and works both ways!). MikeHobday 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard Dogs and Hunting Ethics

Mike, here is an article from a blog that argues that hard dogs are not a result of breeding for hunting, but rather for baiting and fighting. You may not like the author, however :). [\http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2004/12/sad-rise-of-hard-dogs.html

If you have not read his blog before, you should start, if only for the "know your enemy" quality that Sun Tzu would have advised. Here is a good one on that note: http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/search?q=%22canned+hunt%22

It is a long read, but I think that you might agree with some of it. Granted he does some name calling that is off-putting, but I think that if all hunters spent the time thinking about what they are doing that he has done, the debate would be much smaller.--Counsel 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to believe its the same man! MikeHobday 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been interesting watching the discourse on the various pages over which this controversy has been spread. It seems that both sides have decided that the cartoon version of the other is reality.--Counsel 03:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot tagging WikiProject Spain

Hi, Mike! I've moved the post you made about Bullfighting and WikiProject Spain to the project talk page. The short answer is to feel free to delete the tag if it doesn't belong on a particular article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spain tag

The placement of a WikiProject Spain tag is not an assertion that it is the only tag which is appropriate, simply that it is one of the tags which is appropriate. The fact that Bullfighting is found outside of Spain means that other WikiProjects may, and in fact have, placed their tags on the article as well (there are many articles within the scope of multiple WikiProjects). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EspanaViva (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Bloodless bullfighting does not take place in Spain, so tagging it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain is inappropriate. Yet User:SatyrBot was set to mark everything to do with bullfighting as part of the project. There are many elements of Bullfighting that are not Spanish. MikeHobday 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rv on Bullfighting

Thanks. User:Pebs96 feels she owns the entirety of the Bloodless bullfighting article and anything else she's uploaded to en-wiki. fethers 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

tx

Dear Michael, the list is present on it. wiki and it is correct... Uther is not a vamdal in ablolutly.. he is a vandal when destry the work of another user... flavio/Tigre reietta 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check the Wikipedia policy at WP:Assume good faith. The list of sub species is disputed. For example, [4] says: "The taxonomy of the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is still somewhat equivocal and there have been 48 subspecies of Vulpes vulpes proposed. The problem arises in that these subspecies are -- in most instances -- poorly defined and, as such, different researchers have different ideas of how many subspecies are valid. In their Atlas of European Mammals, Anthony Mitchell-Jones and his co-workers consider a maximum of five -- more likely four -- of the European subspecies to have any true validity." Remember also, that every time youmake an edit, you are advised: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." MikeHobday 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Category Animal Rights Legislation

You're probably right that animal welfare legislation is the better title for the category. After reading the articles animal rights and animal welfare, I agree that these laws are more to do with the latter. Kurando | ^_^ 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal Trapping

I was wondering how the external link to the league against cruel sports 'campaign against snares' on the Animal trapping page contributes to the article. Bugguyak 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By providing access to additional information without stuffing the article. MikeHobday 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet, I see an internal link to the league against cruel sports as well as an external link stuffed in the snares [[5]] paragraph in the body of the article. Also, are you not a paid official with this organization? Bugguyak 00:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like it, be bold and edit. I don't own the article. MikeHobday 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, already done. Just thought it was good form to discuss controversial topics first. Bugguyak 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

sorry about the edits there my friend - just having a little fun --Snizlemenizzle (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pruebas de campo.jpg

Besides being against ethical hunting standards, where trainers use scents to train dogs and not live animals on a leash (as in that photo), it is not a photo of hunting with dogs as much as it is so-called "training" of dogs. It should be removed as not representative of modern hunting with dogs. Bugguyak (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of unethical things happen and can be included in an encyclopedia. But the issue of whether this photo is representative is entirely valid. That said, there might be a place for language on dog training somewhere. MikeHobday (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hunt monitors

I think that's a little petty Mike. The need for citations doesn't apply to facts which are common knowledge to anyone with a general knowledge of the subject, and i'm sure you know as well as I do that trespassing is standard practice for monitors. That said, if you insist, i'm sure I can find a source somewhere. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think [6] applies. I think the statement false, but, assuming good faith, I thought I'd give you a chance to investigate this instead of reverting. MikeHobday (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fox hunting

Hi, I saw your note about the foxing-hunting FAC, [7] but I see it's been closed already, which is unusual after only six days. I've left a query about it, [8] in case you want to add a comment -- though you may be okay with it being closed, if you've decided not to do any more work on it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox Hunting

Would you care to join me for a spot of fox hunting old chap? Spiffing! Glad that you'll oblige. Tally ho! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.189.32.65 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Personal Attack"

I have not made any personal attacks against yourself. I don't really know what you're talking about. 194.189.32.65 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See [9], [10], [11] and [12]. MikeHobday (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How was this a personal attack?!? 194.189.32.65 (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, how on Earth can you consider this and this to be personal attacks also? 194.189.32.65 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hare Coursing article

Hello! I was just adding the sources I had found but the electricity here was gone, so wasn't able to do that. Actually I had already found sources of prohibiting coursing in Punjab and Sindh but wasn't able to find a copy of Pakistan Wildlife Protection Act, which I think definitely contains same prohibition as in the wildlife protection acts of Sindh and Punjab. Please look at the article now I have added these two sources, if you want to make some changes please do it. I just tried to respond to the request made at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan by you. --SMS ^Talk 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Invisible comments

Hello there. Questions such as "When was this? I can find no references, and suspect 1924 or so." are much more likely to get a response if raised on the article's talk page, than if hidden in an HTML comment in the body of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

League Against Cruel Sports

Mike, is this the updated mission statement? [13] If so, can we incorporate it into the article? Help would be gratefully appreciated. Sue Wallace (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just a summary of policy. MikeHobday (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sue Wallace (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I've left a considerable number of points on the article's discussion page. I'm concerned that if you don't pick these up soon, the seven-day hold period will be up and the article will fail. Is there a problem? Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Was away for 3 days, now back! Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we can extend the 7 days by a day or two. Look forward to hearing from you.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. Can you take a second look? MikeHobday (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

cockfighting

I have reverted your revert, and I thought it might be polite to inform you, and also inform you why I did so.

I think the statement was most likely correct, however it does seem to be original research and seems to be the sort of statement that is only acceptable when backed up with a citation.

Also I think if it remains then the wording should be a little more neutral, at the moment it seemed to me, to be a justification for cockfighting, or at least it could be read that way.

I welcome your comments regarding my edit, and I am not so arrogant to imagine that I am correct all the time, so I will not take offence if you revert me once more. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, on that basis, one could delete most of the article. The question, to me, is whether we permit original research on a pro tem basis in order to have a half decent article, or cut it down to a stub knowing that this makes it misleading. The problem seems to me to be that most reliable sources cover countries where cockfighting is banned, and most cockfighting lacks reliable sources. Does that mean the article should not acknowledge it? Personally, I'm not sure at this stage of teh article's development. MikeHobday (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues with cited quotes, or proven facts, even when they push the balance of an article, these things cannot be helped, and facts should not be removed just to balance an article...however, when these are statements they should be worded along the lines of "it has been claimed by (name) that..." if the statement is not attributed to anyone other than the editor, then it has no place in wikipedia. Perhaps a cited quote would solve the problem Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:NI_coursing_leaflet.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NI_coursing_leaflet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Hare5.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hare5.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Kelly ^hi! 00:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Images for Deletion

Hi Mike,

I'd be most grateful for your keep vote here.PJHaseldine (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Patrick, nice to hear from you again. If you don't mind, I won't intervene on this. To be honest I neither feel very strongly about the letters nor fully understand what is and what is not appropriate for user talk pages. MikeHobday (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. The issue has now evolved into whether Wikipedia should continue to host the image of my letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988, which I uploaded on 11 February 2006. Background is here, and anyone can join the discussion and vote here.PJHaseldine (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to report that the result of the latter IfD vote was keep.

If you need a diversion from today's rather depressing poll ratings, you might like to take a look at my letter of 5 December 1995 to Hugh Kerr concerning the dossier of evidence (incriminating apartheid South Africa for the Lockerbie bombing), a subject that is currently under discussion here.

Please feel free to join the discussion and to edit Patrick Haseldine as you think fit (which WP:COI precludes me from doing). Following your intervention, I expect nothing less than featured article status for the biography!PJHaseldine (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Patrick, I'm not sure what you are asking me? MikeHobday (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Any assistance you can give to improve the biography (currently 'start' class) would be much appreciated.PJHaseldine (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, not sure that I have any information that could add to the article, but agree that start class seems inappropriate. Would recommend you seek reassessment. MikeHobday (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:WALES_Edwinsford_2005_snared_cat.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:WALES_Edwinsford_2005_snared_cat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Hunting_Act.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hunting_Act.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Kelly ^hi! 00:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: hare coursing

I don't know what happened with the website, but I think I found the law in other sites. The strange thing is that the numbers of the articles are different. So, the article about hares in now article 93 and the reference to galgos (hounds) only being allowed in corricão hare hunting is now in article 84, number 2 and the limit of two dogs in number 3. I don't know why this is, there have been some changes to the law in 2004 and 2005, so maybe the law I found last time was not updated. I'm just guessing though. Anyway, as far as I remember the content of the law seems the same, at least the articles that I've read. The law is available in what I think can be considered reliable sources: in the website of the Procuradoria-Geral Distrital de Lisboa of the Ministério Público (link) and on the website of the GNR (link). Cattus ^talk 16:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NI coursing leaflet.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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD bundled with Obama Republican

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian live competition coursing

Richard, I see you've added Russsia. I bow to your knowledge, but wonder if you could cite a source? Regards. MikeHobday (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike, Personal discussions with Scandinavians and Russians by e-mail in the latter half of the 90's, concerning competitive coursing on the hare by Borzoi, which were confirmed by the following articles: The Russian Hunt, Performance Sighthound Journal, pp 44-51 October-December 2005, Sir Terence Clark. Russian Hunt Trip, Performance Sighthound Journal, pp 58-61 January-March 2006, Yvonne McGehee (plus two further parts in following numbers)--Richard Hawkins (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox hunting: Thoughts

Saw with interest posts re images of dismembered foxes at Talk of Fox hunting.
(1) Has anyone tried making an article specifically on "controversies involving fox hunting" or "animal rights issues in fox hunting" or something of the sort? There might be problems with doing this but if not, the photos found controversial in Fox hunting would presumably be very natural there.
(2) Although Red fox has a section on "Foxes and humans", that section does not mention fox hunting per se (though it does mention fur trapping). The only substantive mention of fox hunting in Red fox is in the section "Distribution": "In temperate North America, Red Foxes are derived from European Red Foxes, which were introduced into the Southeastern United States around 1650-1750[7][8] for fox hunting ..." Presumably more should be added to the section "Foxes and humans".
(3) Fox hunting seems lopsided to me. Discussion of fox hunting in the USA seems to only mention fox hunting on horseback, although AFAIK this has not historically been as popular in the USA as fox hunting without horses.
-- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your first suggestion. Fox hunting is inherently controversial, so the place for an explanation of the controversy is the article itself. As for the other points, why not be bold and make the changes directly. MikeHobday (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

U of H.

Surely you cannot quibble with factual statements such as "Berryman,Lace & Mawer are the university lawyers"? Or are the public to be kept in the dark over collusion between the local constabulary and your pals on Bihops Rise? OyeboOyebo (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

This discussion is taking place at the relevant talk page. MikeHobday (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

G'day and thank you for you vote, albeit an oppose, which indicates you are looking at the candidates quite closely. So far, our voting pattern is identical, except of course that if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't have opposed myself - I'm not impartial on that front. :-)

In regards to your comment, I was mad as a March hare that day for a number of reasons, but mostly because it was an "omg wtf" moment. In addition to the post you mention, I spent the next two days reading through my Thomson books looking for the quote at the top of my candidature statement,[14] and I did a whole lot of thinking about what was going wrong. I do respect that I can be hard hitting at times, but I can say with confidence that you will not find another single occurrence of that type of attack in my contribs - this is the one time where I was so appalled at the system that I did not mind if it was my last post. Jpgordon and I both had a rough day; we have since amicably apologised to each other offline. Note well that both User:SlimVirgin (who "reminded" me of my previous offline statement that I would resign if an arb asked me) and User:jpgordon (who followed though) have supported my candidature, and jpgordon went much further than that here.

As for the opposes who are saying that I am not impartial, please take a look at User:Jayvdb/AA involvement and note that Nishkid and Khoikhoi are not impartial in this, nor are those that are opposing in support of their position, which are numerous. I also ask you to look at Special:Contributions/Samir, and tell me if you dont see something wrong there - I have never ever ever seen Samir before.

Ultimately, I do not mind whether I am elected to the committee that arbitrates the toughest problems here - there are many other good candidates. When I said I have better fish to fry, I meant it. It is with a heavy heart that I decided to put myself up for this position - if I fail, I will have more fun back at Wikisource. I am not asking for your vote - if I was to ask for anything it would be that you to continue supporting my seven (note that I voted for seven, rather than six), or that you come over to Wikisource and put the relevant Hunting Act online - I am curious to read of your success, as opposed to shoddy poems that where published before the final verse was written.

While I'm here saying g'day, I've also copyedited the intro of your FA. I think it improves the readability, but I'll leave it with you to further tweak it if you like - prose isnt my strongest point. Also on the Wikisource side of things, if you know where I can find a digital copy of On Coursing, I'd love to help put that online too. I should be able to find a digitised English translation of Cynegeticus, if you are interested in helping fix the OCR. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More than one omg moment, sadly, it seemed to me when reviewing the issue. And my reference to calmness also referred to your promise to resign. Frankly, that wasn't a plus point for me, I like debate and disagreement. But thanks for your improvement to the hare coursing article. Your wording is far better. MikeHobday (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cockfight in Assam

Cockfight is an indispensable part of Magh Bihu and Hajo is famous for that. I’ll definitely provide some reliable and verifiable sources for the same. I just need some time.

Thanks & Happy New Year. (Footage (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

Tom Daschle

Hi, what is wrong with adding new information about him? It's the truth. Liberals like you are always trying to censor the truth and hiding it from the ignorant socialists in our country. You need to knock it off.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:210.79.174.227 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Please don't call me a liberal! MikeHobday (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey Mike, I see you've warned User:210.79.174.227 about vandalism and unconstructive edits. *sigh* He's at it again on Into the Labyrinth (Saxon album) of all things. I suggest reverting to my edit of 15:09, 5 February 2009[15]. It's not even as if it's that important! TIA.--Rfsmit (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

I saw where you had reverted an IP on Cock fight. I really think that it might have been a good edit, as football means something else to the rest of the anglophone world. Outside of the US , our game is indeed called American football, and it seemed to be in good faith. I hope that you will consider reverting to the IP´s last version, and if there is anything I can do to help you, let me know. -Flaquito (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference in the article is explicitly American, so I;m not persuaded. But do change it yourself if you feel appropriate. Or even add a reference! MikeHobday (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was verytired when I wrote that, and it appears that I confused the two edits. You are of course right, and your edit was an appropriate one. Please accept my apologies.-Flaquito (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi Mike, thanks for your very open disclosure on your talk page. I just thought that considering your political role you might be best to avoid edits such as this. I'm not sure if you've heard about it but there's been a lot of noise in the press in the last few days about a labour councillor editing David Cameron's page (even though it was reverting vandalism). See Sam Blacketer controversy and the long AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Blacketer_controversy. I'm no fan of labour, and that edit isn't wrong, but I thought you'd probably like to avoid any possible problems in the future. Smartse (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably quite right, thanks. It's ironic that anonymous editors can make tendentious edits [16], but those of us who give our real names might have to merely suggest reversions on the talk page. I'll take the page off my watch list to avoid temptation to help write an encyclopaedia! MikeHobday (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, remember that IPs are often less anonymous than users - you can check their location and sometimes more using the "who is" and "geolocate" at the bottom of their contributions page. That's how the editing of Titian by Conservative HQ was found out! See: this and the diff! If you do think that any edits need to be made to pages you think you shouldn't perhaps edit I'll be more than happy to take a look at anything for you. I agree that it is a little stupid but being about yourself is definitely the best option. Smartse (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you can also use {{requestedit}} on talk pages too, to alert others to it otherwise. Smartse (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Question

Hi Mike,

The "life sentence" is factually accurate, and pertinent to Bill Rammell's recent activities. Is there any reason to delete it? Basingwerk (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's back in now. I was trying to rebalance the sentence without bending WP:UNDUE for a small incident in his career, but I don't feel strongly. MikeHobday (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hare coursing article

Mike,

I am removing all references to the clear political agenda you are following in the hare coursing article. This should be about the sport of coursing. Given you declared political agenda on this subject you should not be editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquesdemolay92 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As a featured article, more experienced editors than both of us put together would seem to disagree with you. I suggest you make your suggestions on the article talk page. MikeHobday (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike you are clearly continuing to follow a political agenda in editing this article and I will continue to remove spurious political remarks by you and other animal rights campaigners. Jaquesdemolay92 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read the definition of featured articles. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How dare you threaten to block me from editing out spurious claims that are referenced on the Hare Coursing page, including questioning the legality of hare coursing in the United States; where not one single court has ruled hare coursing to be illegal. Also the use of the word "bloodsport" is a political term and quite offensive to people who participate in hare coursing.Jaquesdemolay92 (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also as a former employee of the League against Cruel sports you are clearly on a ploitical agenda here and should not have been involved in the writing of this biased article. Jaquesdemolay92 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be blocked, I'd respectfully suggest you enter into a discussion on the talk page instead of merely deleting text you disagree with. Wikipedia operates by consensus rather than being whatever you or I believe, no matter how "right" we are. Hoping you don't mind, I'll collect your comments on the talk page into one place for ease of discussion. MikeHobday (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you did want to be blocked, so I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Let's discuss the article on the talk page? MikeHobday (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Gina de Venecia

I kindly request you reassess whether the subject of the article Gina de Venecia is notable per WP:ANYBIO. The subject in question appears not to be awarded a notable award, thus failing WP:ANYBIO, which appears to be the reason why User:Eastmain belives that the subject meets notability requirements via the awards of honorary doctorates. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Claire Ward

Hi there. I know this is a longshot, but I'm involved in a collaborative effort to take this article to at least Good Article status, and securing a donation to wikipedia in the process (details can be found here). I'm having a bit of trouble locating a free image, but am guessing that you might either have one, or know someone who could help us obtain one? Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi WFC, I don't have one, but have solicited one from a friend who works in her office. Would you be happy if it was emailed to you along with appropriate conformation of free or GFDL licence? MikeHobday (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help Mike. For data privacy concerns and a desire to remain anonymous, I'm reluctant to add my email to my wikipedia profile, even if it remains hidden. I could contact you via the email on your blog if that were okay? WFCforLife (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It will be awkward to remain anonymous if you wish to fulfil the demands of the OTRS in registering the permission. If you prefer, I would be happy to receive the file and the required permission statement to my email instead. Road Wizard (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. WFCforLife (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you were having a little trouble changing the status of the article from start-class. To change the quality assessment of an article go to its talk page and change the class= parameter on the project banners. After today's work the article is probably at C-class, so you would change class=start to class=c. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Fighting Bull

Thank you for keeping an eye on this article, as both those for AND against the bull fight have a history of using distortion to fulfill their agenda. I no longer can. (formerly username:fiskeharrison) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.202.44 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Napsbury

Thanks for the help with Napsbury. The problem that I have is that in the original list most of the places were not linked, and it may be that there are two Napsburys. My own suspicion is that the person who put it on the list knows or believes that a village or hamlet was removed or abandoned at some point before the mental hospital was built. Maybe we'll never know.--Storye book (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the hospital was closed, making the village "lost." And then the new housing development was built on the site, "rediscovering" it. But I may be wrong. Living 100 yards from it, I've seen no evidence of an earlier settlement, but that's not to say there wasn't one. I'm pretty confident it's the only Napsbury in Hertfordshire. MikeHobday (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt you're right. However what worries me is that the effect of adding the navbox template to articles on currently inhabited places is that editors/contributors will remove placenames from its list because those contributors are not aware of the local archaeology. The entry for Napsbury in the original List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom (the original model for the navbox) gives this location for the Napsbury site. I'm guessing that it will probably confirm that you are right that there is one Napsbury. But it does possibly indicate a site outside of and to the north of the currently inhabited area. I'm wondering whether, in cases where editors remove the navbox from an article, whether we should ask them to simply disable the link in the navbox, and not actually remove it from the list? That would allow and encourage a later and separate article on the local archaeology.--Storye book (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

List of lost settlements in Hertfordshire has the source listed. The lost village predates the mental hospital by several centuries. Bazj (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the template back in. Perhaps Bazj might edit the article to refer to the source? MikeHobday (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, MikeHobday, for your kind support and patience in this. It must have been a bit disorienting to suddenly have this dumped on your article. Actually this incident has shown me that I had to rewrite the header in the navbox template to clarify things, so it was all for the best. Hope it's OK now.--Storye book (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not "my" article, of course, but many thanks for the significant improvement. MikeHobday (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All the best

For tomorrow. WFCforLife (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. MikeHobday (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Otis Ferry

As a contributor to the article Otis Ferry, you may be interested in the discussion of that article here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#And_another_example:_Otis_Ferry. --JN466 19:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)