User talk:32.218.43.102

I was referencing a Facebook post (cited with a link) put out by the WI DNR. I think that is certainly evidence of what they said (they said it, that's a fact). It is one side of a story - I see no problem with sharing it. The second addition I made (the reference to the state statutes that prohibit the possession of captive wildlife in Wisconsin, is factual and relevant to the story. It is cited with a  reference to the Wisconsin State Legislature and mentions the exact law that prohibits it.  Surely you can appreciate that these are reputable enough sources to be used on Wikipedia.


 * Facebook is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. Do the right thing and revert your edit and stop edit warring. 32.218.43.102 (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My reference to Facebook is simply noting what the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources posted about the event. I am not claiming it is "god's truth", it is what they said. I correctly note that they "claimed on their Facebook page". I am confused why you see any issue with this. It is fact that they made this claim on their Facebook page.

I do not work for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, but do have respect for the work they do.

What about you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiscoj (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with my personal opinion. It has to do with Wikipedia's policies. So just cut the crap and read those policies. 32.218.43.102 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)