User talk:Parks1997

hi, Parks, let me make a couple of points. I am not uncritical of HSUS, but i think that criticisms belong in criticism sections, and I also think that Humanewatch is not a suitable source. (i have not seen a single other example of such claims coming in the first few lines of a description of an organization). I am concerned that among other things in recent weeks you have attempted to assign a new IRS designation to the HSUS, used the word "propaganda" in description of its activities, routinely cited claims by Humanewatch either redundantly or without third party verification or sources, sought to recast the organization's position on the keeping of wild animals as pets, and overturned dozens of edits that I offered in the interests of improving the entry, in order to restore a highly biased version that places the Humanewatch perspective at the heart of the entry rather than in the criticisms section. You are not conducting yourself according to the principles that guide the wikipedia experience. There is plenty of space and opportunity for criticism of HSUS but not on these lines. Why should your version of some weeks ago displace the numerous constructive edits I made, adding information on various positions, updating news on campaigns it pursues with links to third party sources, listing key personnel, improving grammar and syntax, sourcing key information on salary, income, spending, stature in the nonprofit sector,and so on. You ought not to cast or dismiss the positive contributions improperly as vandalism. that's not fair. if you want to add a section on wild animals as pets, or modify such information, find a way to do that. the evidence does not support the value of the Humanewatch criticism or the mischaracterization of the HSUS as an animal rights group as many others have pointed out through the years.Vetman (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

]

Parks1997, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Parks1997! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 20:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

January 2014

Hello, Parks1997. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
Message added 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Parks1997. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crying is neither an emotion, nor is it something exclusive to humans. It is a response to a state of emotion, rather than being the emotion itself. Please don't just remove images at random; in fact, the image of the gorilla gives a correct alternative perspective on the issue of crying. The article itself references Darwin's research on the topic of crying and its relation from humans to other animals; the image has every right to remain. Be more conscientious about your edits next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmwraith (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit description when I reversed your edit last time: if you look at the pages for those lizards, they say they're Agaminae. Please either leave them on the Agaminae page, or change their pages to reflect whatever subfamily they do belong in. Tamtrible (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the here !

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]