![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
The first paragraph in this section makes no sense whatsoever. Suggest that the first sentence be merged with the next paragraph, and the remainder of the first paragraph deleted. Mortalusis 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There are too many pictures in this article. It appears to be more of a childish "Aww, my guinea pig is so cute. See? See?" rather than something informative. -- 72.57.2.7 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following picture: Image:Cavia porcellus-Licorice.jpg , has the caption: "Black guinea pigs are considered especially holy." I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean or whether it is encyclopedia appropriate. I suggest a rephrasing is in order to clarify the author's intent. LitCigar 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll provide the bibliographic reference later, but I read an anthropological study of cavies and their role in indigenous religous ceremony in the andes. It basically said that black cavies, and only black ones, are used by traditional healers to assume the spirit or sickness of the person being treated. like a scapegoat, without the killing. So that's what they meant. VanTucky 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess the book is already cited. Though from my reading it didnt say that they are used to determine illness at all. VanTucky 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard guinea pigs/cavies called pargs, not in English anyway. If its a foreign language name its proper place is the Czech article or whatever it is. There doesnt seem to be a discussion (archived or otherwise) about this odd addition. I Googled it, even "keeping pet pargs", and there were no results relating to cavies within the first ten pages (not that Google is the most reliable bibliogrpahic resource, but it shows the relative obscurity of the term anyway). If its a regional name or something please fill me in. Thanks VanTucky 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, just incase, lets add Pargs as a redirect Gerbilfyed4 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I am curious, about guinea pigs, since I just purchased one, she does not seem to be very old, maybe 3 months, she is still very skiddish,What should I do to tame her a bit more? thankyou for your help.
No, it was vandalism. The only way to tame her (and you can tell how young she is by her nails, if they are short and sharp and dont require trimming yet, then she is less a year) is to hold her everyday for at least fifteen minutes at a time. Maybe once in the morning and once in the evening if possible. also, an important part is how you pick her up from in the cage, make sure to do it quickly and deftly. dont chase her around the cage with your hand or try and corner her and trap her. and when putting her back in, do it rear-end first so she wont try and squirm as much. VanTucky 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
please refrain from changing the picture to the Dishover jpg from the original Joepcavia. However cute your pet may be, it is not a clearer picture of a cavy speciamen. VanTucky 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this user has been asked repeatedly to stop and is completely unresponsive. I suggest we either place the article under semi-protection or better yet, block his IP address (if possible). VanTucky 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont know how. VanTucky 23:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This conversation makes me laugh. -- Steel 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the solution is to create a specific (and alterable of course) set of criteria for semi and full protection. Both to give guidelines for and differentiate the two options. I'm not an admin myself, but maybe someone (hint hint Steel) would like to get started on it. VanTucky 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be time to try unprotecting this article. --
Aranae
05:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The statement "It is high in protein (21%) and low in fat (8%)" appears to be backed up by http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-61200-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Perhaps other material from this piece or the articles it itself cites could be used in this article.
Is protection really needed here.. looks like a problem with one guy and a picture.. would not a simple block work? Balaam42 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The article states that guinea pigs are 25-40 cm long. This is huge. My family and I have had dozens of guinea pigs, and I don't think I've ever seen one longer than 30 cm in its normal posture. Most were about 20 cm when full-grown.
But of course, GPs are very flexible animals and can stretch out to become significantly longer than they are in their normal posture. Are these figures of 25-40 cm meant to apply to a GP fully stretched out? SpectrumDT 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no. It refers to the possible length of a extended show/pet cavy, but also to the larger varieties bred as livestock. Just like other animals, farmers breed them for mass to increase the market weight of cavies for consumption. Hence producing cavies of much larger size than typically seen in The States or Europe. VanTucky 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so I've adopted a cavy from the local humane society, and they told me it was male. But after trimming its nails, I noticed it has nipples. Does this mean that its a female? I need to know asap b/c I'm a foster volunteer and I'm not looking for any baby cavies. VanTucky 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
no, its not obvious. I knew that at least females had to have them, but just because other male mammals (such as humans) do doesnt necessarily mean cavies do. and I thought it was a male when I checked too, but thats not obvious to someone who hasnt had them before. it may surprise you to learn that most people cant differnetiate rodent genetalia without experience. VanTucky 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There really are far too many. I can't think of another article so loaded with photos of wiccle animals. I'm going to start removing these as I edit. Chris Cunningham 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ahc, all those without a doubt support the text. every few weeks we get some random yokel (no offense chris) coming in and for some reason objecting to the number of pictures. It only has alot of pics in contrast to other small mammal articles, which personally I think could use more. Rodents are all very similar animals, and the best way for laymen to differentiate them is the vast visual difference between say, a cavy and a capybara. Besides the huge difference between a Peruvian and a Abyssinian or American variety of cavy is best shown through pics. As far as the pregnant pic goes, its EXTEMEMLY important for someone adopting or buying a cavy to know what a pregnant female looks like, for obvious reasons. VanTucky 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
wikipedia is an open source ENCYLCOPEDIA which, as you well know, is intended to be informatory. anyone should (and can) be able to get information about what constitutes an acceptable level of health in a guinea pig up for purchase or adoption. Whether or not youre going to get more cavies than you bargained for is rather important I would think. But youre right about some of the random pics of cavies eating and such that are just repetitous. they dont even need a gallery really. VanTucky 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
sounds good. VanTucky 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there are too many pictures and that some aren't very useful, but I consider pictures to be a very inportant part of an article. Some can be deleted, but more than just the 5 above should stay. Reywas92 Talk 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
well, on a purely sociological perspective, the one of the black cavy should stay. The use of cavies by folk healers is the second big reason for their rearing in the Andean region of SA. and its an interesting tidbit VanTucky 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
agree, but dont replace the headliner with the abysinnian, just delete them. the front view is in no way clearer than the present side view pic. VanTucky 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No one seems to have objected to the recent deletions, or commented about replacing the prime photo. So I'll go ahead and delete the Absyinnians too. VanTucky 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose we close the dsicussion of any further picture deletion and consider replacing the primary picture upon finding a higher quality picture of an American(breed) cavy. (bangs gavel) VanTucky 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, whatever user insists on reverting to the costumed cavy, please desist. Not one regular editor of this article is going to let someone post a racist picture like that. Besides, its just silly. This may the internet, but there are plenty of forums to post your cutesy pet pics other than Wikipedia. VanTucky 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
haha! just to set the record straight, no one is perfect when it comes to wiki rules. We both have made personal attacks, which are expressly forbidden. so here's my apology for that. I can definitely appreciate your well developed sense of sarcasm. as far as cavy/guinea pig goes...who cares. I call them cavies, you call them guinea pigs, I have a friend who just calls them piggies (or even little fuckers when they bite). Its not that anyone thinks that your costume fun actually harms native americans (I called them first nations people because I have personally been asked by indians to call them that), its that a combination of little things add up to a larger cultural stereotype of the tomahawk bearing redskin. so we try not post examples for thousands of people to see. and to ask whether its offensive isnt asinine. it offends me. so its offensive. maybe not for everyone, but for me. To sum it up, you can name/dress up your pets and yourself as whatever the hell you please. You can think native americans should be sent to the gas chambers in the privacy of your home. this is america. but when you impose it on a public forum like Wikipedia, you are doing something wrong. But besides the larger "ethical" arguements, the pictures just arent quality examples of composition to represent a "typical guinea pig". Thats mostly why they have been denied. VanTucky 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aww, LOL, thats quite cute! Sorry, but It doesnt exactly fit in as a "normal" cavy. Gerbilfyed4 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think both the normal cavy and the first nation people cavy were really cute, but i feel we need to chaneg the pig to a more appropiate one. The cage pictured int he background is a typical petshop cage, and those cages are horrible for pigs. They are just oversized little boxes. Not good. It has to be pictured with a cage from CavyCages.com
Any1 agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerbilfyed4 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC). Gerbilfyed4 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! This one is is a self-explanatory NO. That is blatantly attemping to advertise something. And no, they are not oversized little boxes that are horrible for them. "Any1"?! What a joke! Reywas92 Talk 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
DUDE! The petshop cages are horrible for them. They are stressfully cruelly tooo small. Cavycages are not a product,t hey are a breakthrough for cavies. Would you rather live in a bathroom or an apartment? Gerbilfyed4 05:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
youre both wrong. a picture from cavycages.com would be spam and not allowed. and petstore cages are vastly too small. but the original pic doesnt show/advocate any particular cage size, and besides the picture is meant to be a clear picture of a common cavy specimen, so the background is ancillary. VanTucky 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two fundamental problems with this suggestion. First the problem with the current image is mostly that it is of poor quality regardless of the cage. Second, the image should not highlight the cage; it should highlight Guinea Pigs. I suggest we try to use a better image that shows the animal in a more generic environment, for instance on a towel or grass. -- Ahc 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I will add my pig Fleance, but you can revert it of course. ~They will be placed on a blanket!
Gerbilfyed4 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
pic was blurry and dark. why cant everyone just move on and quit worrying about the damn picture of the guinea pig and inserting the picture of their beloved pet. If I can resist the urge, why cant you? lets try and maybe improve the content of the article instead eh? VanTucky 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
But the cage pictured in there even subtley is a clue to keep them in a horrid petshop cage. Ill find a better pic, prolly one of my breeder friend's pics, she has a buncha pics of them on the lawn and for photoshoots outdoors. Gerbilfyed4 20:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverted to old pic from circa 2005 Gerbilfyed4 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
that's much better. and those himalayans sure are cute. it would be awesome if we could get a pic that maybe has a human hand in it for scale though, but for now that one is good I think. VanTucky 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time to unprotect the article now. What do you think? Reywas92 Talk 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
sounds good, we only put in under protection a while back because of one particular newb consistently reverting to a pic without discussion. the problem seems to be solved, so lets unprotect. VanTucky 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
seems I was wrong actually. another person keeps rv to another pregnant pic. can we make some kind of banner that says to please no add more pics without discussion? that is really the problem that caused protection. VanTucky 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ill remove the protection. Plus, i added a better pic. Gerbilfyed4 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks. good work. VanTucky 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a pic of piggy jiggy (cavia porcellus genitia) Gerbilfyed4 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
please dont add additional pics. this has been previously discussed, and the article already has more than enough pictures. thanks VanTucky 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
To all wikipedians and unregistered users: PLEASE DO NOT ADD/REPLACE ANY PICTURES ON THE GUINEA PIG ARTICLE. VanTucky 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
The first paragraph in this section makes no sense whatsoever. Suggest that the first sentence be merged with the next paragraph, and the remainder of the first paragraph deleted. Mortalusis 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There are too many pictures in this article. It appears to be more of a childish "Aww, my guinea pig is so cute. See? See?" rather than something informative. -- 72.57.2.7 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following picture: Image:Cavia porcellus-Licorice.jpg , has the caption: "Black guinea pigs are considered especially holy." I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean or whether it is encyclopedia appropriate. I suggest a rephrasing is in order to clarify the author's intent. LitCigar 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll provide the bibliographic reference later, but I read an anthropological study of cavies and their role in indigenous religous ceremony in the andes. It basically said that black cavies, and only black ones, are used by traditional healers to assume the spirit or sickness of the person being treated. like a scapegoat, without the killing. So that's what they meant. VanTucky 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess the book is already cited. Though from my reading it didnt say that they are used to determine illness at all. VanTucky 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard guinea pigs/cavies called pargs, not in English anyway. If its a foreign language name its proper place is the Czech article or whatever it is. There doesnt seem to be a discussion (archived or otherwise) about this odd addition. I Googled it, even "keeping pet pargs", and there were no results relating to cavies within the first ten pages (not that Google is the most reliable bibliogrpahic resource, but it shows the relative obscurity of the term anyway). If its a regional name or something please fill me in. Thanks VanTucky 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, just incase, lets add Pargs as a redirect Gerbilfyed4 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I am curious, about guinea pigs, since I just purchased one, she does not seem to be very old, maybe 3 months, she is still very skiddish,What should I do to tame her a bit more? thankyou for your help.
No, it was vandalism. The only way to tame her (and you can tell how young she is by her nails, if they are short and sharp and dont require trimming yet, then she is less a year) is to hold her everyday for at least fifteen minutes at a time. Maybe once in the morning and once in the evening if possible. also, an important part is how you pick her up from in the cage, make sure to do it quickly and deftly. dont chase her around the cage with your hand or try and corner her and trap her. and when putting her back in, do it rear-end first so she wont try and squirm as much. VanTucky 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
please refrain from changing the picture to the Dishover jpg from the original Joepcavia. However cute your pet may be, it is not a clearer picture of a cavy speciamen. VanTucky 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this user has been asked repeatedly to stop and is completely unresponsive. I suggest we either place the article under semi-protection or better yet, block his IP address (if possible). VanTucky 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont know how. VanTucky 23:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This conversation makes me laugh. -- Steel 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the solution is to create a specific (and alterable of course) set of criteria for semi and full protection. Both to give guidelines for and differentiate the two options. I'm not an admin myself, but maybe someone (hint hint Steel) would like to get started on it. VanTucky 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be time to try unprotecting this article. --
Aranae
05:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The statement "It is high in protein (21%) and low in fat (8%)" appears to be backed up by http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-61200-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Perhaps other material from this piece or the articles it itself cites could be used in this article.
Is protection really needed here.. looks like a problem with one guy and a picture.. would not a simple block work? Balaam42 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The article states that guinea pigs are 25-40 cm long. This is huge. My family and I have had dozens of guinea pigs, and I don't think I've ever seen one longer than 30 cm in its normal posture. Most were about 20 cm when full-grown.
But of course, GPs are very flexible animals and can stretch out to become significantly longer than they are in their normal posture. Are these figures of 25-40 cm meant to apply to a GP fully stretched out? SpectrumDT 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no. It refers to the possible length of a extended show/pet cavy, but also to the larger varieties bred as livestock. Just like other animals, farmers breed them for mass to increase the market weight of cavies for consumption. Hence producing cavies of much larger size than typically seen in The States or Europe. VanTucky 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so I've adopted a cavy from the local humane society, and they told me it was male. But after trimming its nails, I noticed it has nipples. Does this mean that its a female? I need to know asap b/c I'm a foster volunteer and I'm not looking for any baby cavies. VanTucky 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
no, its not obvious. I knew that at least females had to have them, but just because other male mammals (such as humans) do doesnt necessarily mean cavies do. and I thought it was a male when I checked too, but thats not obvious to someone who hasnt had them before. it may surprise you to learn that most people cant differnetiate rodent genetalia without experience. VanTucky 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There really are far too many. I can't think of another article so loaded with photos of wiccle animals. I'm going to start removing these as I edit. Chris Cunningham 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ahc, all those without a doubt support the text. every few weeks we get some random yokel (no offense chris) coming in and for some reason objecting to the number of pictures. It only has alot of pics in contrast to other small mammal articles, which personally I think could use more. Rodents are all very similar animals, and the best way for laymen to differentiate them is the vast visual difference between say, a cavy and a capybara. Besides the huge difference between a Peruvian and a Abyssinian or American variety of cavy is best shown through pics. As far as the pregnant pic goes, its EXTEMEMLY important for someone adopting or buying a cavy to know what a pregnant female looks like, for obvious reasons. VanTucky 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
wikipedia is an open source ENCYLCOPEDIA which, as you well know, is intended to be informatory. anyone should (and can) be able to get information about what constitutes an acceptable level of health in a guinea pig up for purchase or adoption. Whether or not youre going to get more cavies than you bargained for is rather important I would think. But youre right about some of the random pics of cavies eating and such that are just repetitous. they dont even need a gallery really. VanTucky 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
sounds good. VanTucky 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there are too many pictures and that some aren't very useful, but I consider pictures to be a very inportant part of an article. Some can be deleted, but more than just the 5 above should stay. Reywas92 Talk 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
well, on a purely sociological perspective, the one of the black cavy should stay. The use of cavies by folk healers is the second big reason for their rearing in the Andean region of SA. and its an interesting tidbit VanTucky 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
agree, but dont replace the headliner with the abysinnian, just delete them. the front view is in no way clearer than the present side view pic. VanTucky 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No one seems to have objected to the recent deletions, or commented about replacing the prime photo. So I'll go ahead and delete the Absyinnians too. VanTucky 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose we close the dsicussion of any further picture deletion and consider replacing the primary picture upon finding a higher quality picture of an American(breed) cavy. (bangs gavel) VanTucky 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, whatever user insists on reverting to the costumed cavy, please desist. Not one regular editor of this article is going to let someone post a racist picture like that. Besides, its just silly. This may the internet, but there are plenty of forums to post your cutesy pet pics other than Wikipedia. VanTucky 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
haha! just to set the record straight, no one is perfect when it comes to wiki rules. We both have made personal attacks, which are expressly forbidden. so here's my apology for that. I can definitely appreciate your well developed sense of sarcasm. as far as cavy/guinea pig goes...who cares. I call them cavies, you call them guinea pigs, I have a friend who just calls them piggies (or even little fuckers when they bite). Its not that anyone thinks that your costume fun actually harms native americans (I called them first nations people because I have personally been asked by indians to call them that), its that a combination of little things add up to a larger cultural stereotype of the tomahawk bearing redskin. so we try not post examples for thousands of people to see. and to ask whether its offensive isnt asinine. it offends me. so its offensive. maybe not for everyone, but for me. To sum it up, you can name/dress up your pets and yourself as whatever the hell you please. You can think native americans should be sent to the gas chambers in the privacy of your home. this is america. but when you impose it on a public forum like Wikipedia, you are doing something wrong. But besides the larger "ethical" arguements, the pictures just arent quality examples of composition to represent a "typical guinea pig". Thats mostly why they have been denied. VanTucky 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aww, LOL, thats quite cute! Sorry, but It doesnt exactly fit in as a "normal" cavy. Gerbilfyed4 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think both the normal cavy and the first nation people cavy were really cute, but i feel we need to chaneg the pig to a more appropiate one. The cage pictured int he background is a typical petshop cage, and those cages are horrible for pigs. They are just oversized little boxes. Not good. It has to be pictured with a cage from CavyCages.com
Any1 agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerbilfyed4 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC). Gerbilfyed4 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! This one is is a self-explanatory NO. That is blatantly attemping to advertise something. And no, they are not oversized little boxes that are horrible for them. "Any1"?! What a joke! Reywas92 Talk 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
DUDE! The petshop cages are horrible for them. They are stressfully cruelly tooo small. Cavycages are not a product,t hey are a breakthrough for cavies. Would you rather live in a bathroom or an apartment? Gerbilfyed4 05:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
youre both wrong. a picture from cavycages.com would be spam and not allowed. and petstore cages are vastly too small. but the original pic doesnt show/advocate any particular cage size, and besides the picture is meant to be a clear picture of a common cavy specimen, so the background is ancillary. VanTucky 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two fundamental problems with this suggestion. First the problem with the current image is mostly that it is of poor quality regardless of the cage. Second, the image should not highlight the cage; it should highlight Guinea Pigs. I suggest we try to use a better image that shows the animal in a more generic environment, for instance on a towel or grass. -- Ahc 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I will add my pig Fleance, but you can revert it of course. ~They will be placed on a blanket!
Gerbilfyed4 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
pic was blurry and dark. why cant everyone just move on and quit worrying about the damn picture of the guinea pig and inserting the picture of their beloved pet. If I can resist the urge, why cant you? lets try and maybe improve the content of the article instead eh? VanTucky 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
But the cage pictured in there even subtley is a clue to keep them in a horrid petshop cage. Ill find a better pic, prolly one of my breeder friend's pics, she has a buncha pics of them on the lawn and for photoshoots outdoors. Gerbilfyed4 20:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverted to old pic from circa 2005 Gerbilfyed4 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
that's much better. and those himalayans sure are cute. it would be awesome if we could get a pic that maybe has a human hand in it for scale though, but for now that one is good I think. VanTucky 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time to unprotect the article now. What do you think? Reywas92 Talk 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
sounds good, we only put in under protection a while back because of one particular newb consistently reverting to a pic without discussion. the problem seems to be solved, so lets unprotect. VanTucky 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
seems I was wrong actually. another person keeps rv to another pregnant pic. can we make some kind of banner that says to please no add more pics without discussion? that is really the problem that caused protection. VanTucky 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ill remove the protection. Plus, i added a better pic. Gerbilfyed4 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks. good work. VanTucky 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a pic of piggy jiggy (cavia porcellus genitia) Gerbilfyed4 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
please dont add additional pics. this has been previously discussed, and the article already has more than enough pictures. thanks VanTucky 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
To all wikipedians and unregistered users: PLEASE DO NOT ADD/REPLACE ANY PICTURES ON THE GUINEA PIG ARTICLE. VanTucky 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)