I think it would be a good idea for us to stop editing the shock collar page for a couple of days, then come back and take a look over the whole thing. I can see what points you are trying to make and I've tried to add information that deals withe the issues you've raised. Now is time to review the page, because it looks pretty balanced in intent and content. Rondoggy ( talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The reason for stopping editing for a couple of days is that other people should be given the chance to make edits and comments! Rondoggy ( talk) 08:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It isn't possible for other people to make an attempt at editing the page whilst it is constantly being changed back and forth. You are just as guilty of this as I am. So, I am staying away from this page to see what happens to it. Rondoggy ( talk) 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I did post a reply about training, but maybe someone deleted it. The link is from the word "training" in the first line of the text (The term shock collar is a term used in order to describe a family of training collars (also called e-collars, Ecollars, remote ). Hope that helps. Rondoggy ( talk) 11:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I removed the section from NICE, in line with previous comments you made: "Per Wiki guidelines a "Self−Published Source." Wiki States, "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". there is no information on that site to say who NICE is, or what basis it has for its opinions. The fact that NICE falls under legislation on non-profit organisations does not change the fact that there is nothing to indicate who the person running that page is, why they should be recognised as an expert etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectronn ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello. Why did you delete " or noise, (in order the the dog get silent)". Many collar are activated by sound. Thanks. Domsau2 ( talk) 21:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You cannot repeatedly remove text and sources just because they contradict your beliefs about shock collars. Removing non-English sources and stating "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources" is completely wrong. As you are aware of, the complete sentence is as follows: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Provided they are otherwise of equal suitability! So unless you have an English source of equal suitability, do not destroy the work of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.52.237 ( talk) 18:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shooting of James Boyd page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I left you a message on my user page. I'll erase it after you indicate you have read it. Activist ( talk) 12:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply