Hello, Beanyandcecil. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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

@ Elinruby: @ Activist: Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Earlier I asked, "Do you have any education, training, or experience in such police matters?"

Activist wrote, "a.) Yes, yes and yes.

The military?

b.) I have two honorable discharges and spent two years in Viet Nam."

Please expand on your answer. Are you, or were you a LEO? If so, for how long? If so at what level? (state, federal, local, county?) What assignments did you work? If you were on a tactical team, where did you get your training? What branch of the military were you in? Your military experience is interesting, thank you for your service. But it does not give you much, if any, insight into matters such as we're discussing in the Boyd Article.

Activist wrote, "c.) Thirteen years after I returned from 'Nam, a friend asked me to park his RV van at my house. He was in a dispute with his estranged wife, at the time. I started to drive it to my house and was pulled over by probably four or five city cruisers that converged on me from behinds and from a side street. It was around midnight, pitch black. I pulled over when the first turned on his light bar. I was asked on its speaker to roll down my window and throw out my ignition keys. I was extremely careful to follow the directions precisely. The squad cars turned their lights on to illuminate the scene. I was asked to open my door and step out of the vehicle. I did so. I was then asked to kneel down, then lie prone on the pavement, which I did. Then numerous LEO's approached me with shotguns out, pointing down at me. I could only see the barrels of some with my peripheral vision. They cuffed me behind my back and began to question me, when my friend who had been following me came up to them, produced his I.D., and explained the situation. At that point they uncuffed me and made sure I was sober and wished me well. They were very professional. I hadn't had a drink since May '68 when a second major offensive, following Tet, found me mostly surrounded in the middle of a firefight. I had only had three beers that night, but in a situation like that, you want to be absolutely sober as I'm sure you can imagine. I never took another drink. (I have only been intoxicated maybe a half a dozen times in my life.) I went on to park the car at my house. So like yourself, I certainly have been in that situation. However I fully realize how someone who had drank six beers or who had gotten very agitated might have wound up dead."

I'm not sure why you've described this incident, Can you explain please? I don't see what it has to do with either our previous exchanges or the Boyd Article. Is this in response to my question about where you obtained your expertise in tactics? It seems like a very professional contact on the part of LE.

I've asked you several other questions that you seem to have either just ignored, or perhaps you missed them? Please answer them.

Especially of interest is for you to give support for your claim about the family's lawsuit. To remind you, Earlier you wrote, "and a jury found the City to be liable for the excesses that produced this awful death to the tune of $5 million, almost three times the damages for which the Boyd estate asked." As I've said, every source that I've found says that the city settled for the $5 million figure.

And I'm curious as to your statement that you wrote on my Talk page when you notified me of this message. There you wrote under the title "Message to you

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)"

Why would you not want to leave your message up for all to see? Is there something there that's untrue? Is there something secret that you don't want others to know? I plan on placing this on my Talk page, and not deleting it. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

You asked if I had military experience. I shouldn't have answered you, obviously, but I foolishly was under the apprehension that you might have a little bit of class. Why don't you post under your own name and put personal contact info on it? I left the note about my pretty unsettling experience because you wrote that you had been mistaken for a suspect when working as an LEO. One gets an interesting perspective from that viewpoint. I don't disagree about the $5 million figure. But it is obviously almost three times what the family asked for. If the City wanted to pay them off, they would have done so for the lower figure. It certainly wasn't borne out of generosity. I really don't have any more time to waste on you, or I would have answered each of your statements last night. As it is, you've cost me valuable time I don't have to spare. If you want my DD-214, I'll send it to you if you donate $250 to my favorite 501(c)3 charity, and I'll send you a copy when I verify receipt by them and your check clears. Let me know. Activist ( talk) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Activist wrote, "You asked if I had military experience. I shouldn't have answered you, obviously, but I foolishly was under the apprehension that you might have a little bit of class."

Wondering just what it was that I said that makes you say that I'm lacking "class?"

Activist wrote, "Why don't you post under your own name and put personal contact info on it?"

Wondering what brings this up? You're certainly not posting under " 'your' own name." Neither is Elinruby, neither is just about anyone I've seen on Wikipedia. Why would you suggest that I do this?

Activist wrote, "I left the note about my pretty unsettling experience because you wrote that you had been mistaken for a suspect when working as an LEO. One gets an interesting perspective from that viewpoint."

OK, now I understand. Thanks for the explanation.

Activist wrote, "I don't disagree about the $5 million figure. But it is obviously almost three times what the family asked for. If the City wanted to pay them off, they would have done so for the lower figure. It certainly wasn't borne out of generosity."

I keep hearing about this 1.75M that the Boyd family demanded in their lawsuit. It makes no sense, as you allude to, for the city to have settled for a higher figure than they were asking for, so I went looking for a source for this figure. First I went to the Wiki article that stated it in the POV. The source given didn't support it, so I deleted the figure from the Article. I searched for quite some time but could not find a single news story that mentioned that, or any other, figure. It's common in such lawsuits NOT to demand an amount at filing. Usually the amount asked for doesn't come up until the end of the civil suit. I was unable to find the court paperwork on the filing. It looks like it's ANOTHER urban legend that you and some others have been spreading.

If you disagree, please go find a reliable source that discusses it. If you can't find one, how about you just 'come clean,' and admit that you're spreading untruths and basing a great deal of how you think about this case on them?

Activist wrote, "I really don't have any more time to waste on you, or I would have answered each of your statements last night. As it is, you've cost me valuable time I don't have to spare."

No one is forcing you into this discussion. Spend your time as you like. But the fact that you've not answered my many simple questions is telling, as is your repeatedly relying on urban myths to support your position.

Activist wrote, "If you want my DD-214, I'll send it to you if you donate $250 to my favorite 501(c)3 charity, and I'll send you a copy when I verify receipt by them and your check clears. Let me know." [

Why on earth would I care about your military service to this degree? I simply asked for your assignments. If you were a cook or an officer worker, your experience in tactical matters would be quite a bit different than if you were directly involved in combat. Nonetheless, military tactics have little connection to LE tactics.

Oh and BTW, it's obvious that you have absolutely no education, training, or experience in LE tactics, or you'd have spoken of them when you gave your military creds. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello. When quoting someone, please use the template {{ tq}}. Otherwise your responses are a wall of text and hard to follow. Also try keeping your responses concise. You can use bullet points or numbering to do so. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello Beanyandcecil, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Shooting of James Boyd has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Please don't insert your responses into someone else's comment, as you did here, and appear to have done several other places on that talk page. It makes the conversation very difficult to follow and creates a lot of confusion about who said what. Replies go below the post you are replying to, with an indent to set it apart. See WP:INTERSPERSE. Thanks! Fyddlestix ( talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply

When I'm replying to a simple comment then I do it as you've stated. But often I'm replying to a large comment that is complicated and discusses many individual topics. In those cases if I were to reply below the author's statement, readers could not follow the discussions at all. There would be statements that appeared to be made in a vacuum becuase they were not related to anything. And so I reply to such statements inline. I've heard this both ways and I and other editors have been doing it inline since this discussion started. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Beanyandcecil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Beanyandcecil. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Slatersteven, Before the first edit, I wrote a message to the editor of that material explaining that I was changing it because it contained erroneous material and was a news report that a law had been created banning shock collars. The best source as to whether or not such a law has been created is the government law book/website, not a news article PREDICTING that they would be banned over a year in the future. Legislators change their minds, situations change, and there is a huge number of other reasons of reasons why the ban may not have taken effect. In fact, there was an earlier news story that the ban would take effect, on the first day of the new year. In that case the law DID NOT take effect due to a legislator changing his mind, but the initial news story still comes up occasionally, misleading all who read it. If there was a retraction, it's not linked to the initial article.

I should have not used the phrase "primary source." I should have said "original source." One editor thinks that the original source, the law as written on the books is a "primary source." I disagree. The only question in this disagreement is whether or not a law exists. The BEST source of that information is the law as it exists in the official documents of the government. Other editors have used news sources reporting that these laws "will be passed" (over a year from the date of the news article). They have not presented an article that says that the law was passed, and they have refused requests to provide a citation of the actual law from the law book/website.

One of the articles in question, https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/4665206/elektronische-halsband-honden-hondenband-verboden states that a year in the future (from 2019) shock collars WILL BE banned. There is no update and we have no way of knowing if the ban passed or not. No one has presented any evidence stating that it did pass.

Now, an editor that I thought I had reached consensus with, has reverted material that contains misstatements. I’m still trying to work things out, but given that this is a highly emotional topic I don't hold much hope.

I'm wondering, did the other editors receive similar warnings since they are doing the same reverts? Do I need to make a complaint for this to happen? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 22:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Being right or informing users is not an excuse for edit warring. As to primary sources read wp:primary yes they are primary sources. Also it is clear you did not have any kind of consensus as they reverted you, and it is hard to see how you could have assumed you had consensus given that fact. You also need to read wp:agf, the other user (as far as I can see) reverted you once, that is not edit warring. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply