User talk:MikeHobday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, MikeHobday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — ciphergoth 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Baiting

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/k/User_talk%7EMikeHobday_cd03.html"