User talk:Davidsgill

Please don't remove sourced material. If the source is inaccurate, please provide another source demonstrating that it is so.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on South Lakes Wild Animal Park. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

COI
A thread concerning your potential COI has been started at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how anyone can remove non factual content or news articles that have non factual based comments. I came on the site because of an abusive email i recieved about content on the site. I found it to be a distateful newspaper commnet. how can wikipedia be thought of as a "factual" tool when it relies upon tabloid newspapers for "facts" it become as bad as them if the truth ids prevented from entering the domain. Newspapers do not print retractions nor do they print the truth when they make erros. I would be very grateful for an opportunity to correct this sometimes libleous content as it certainly is not true in most of its contents.

thankyou. (Davidsgill (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

I would be grateful for some dialouge on this issue to resolve the factual errors please. (Davidsgill (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC))


 * By all means comment on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. I reread the source provided for the disputed paragraph, and as it does not mention who actually shot the rhino, removed that portion. However, unless the source is deemed unreliable then I see no reason that it shouldn't be included. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine what is and is not true, only what can be verified by reliable sources.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 19:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Cairns Wildlife Safari Reserve, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Zoo Pro  23:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice
Hi David, please take a look at my comment at the conflict of interest noticeboard and comment if you wish. If you continue to make edits such as this you are likely to end up being blocked from editing and there will be less chance of us resolving this problem. I strongly suggest that you discuss this with us, rather than continuing to edit the articles. Smartse (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Smartse, Also David I understand your issues with ZooWorks and Tim Husband in general (I was around when it all happened) however Wikipedia is not the place to discuss it. I think his recent track record at Zion and his expulsion from ZAA demonstrate to anyone who bothers to look that they are no longer considered "Top Zoo Consultants". I think you should move on from all this and focus on the future and not the past. Whilst I know the truth of Mareeba having discussed it with the former Head Keeper and having volunteered a short time there in 2007 I cannot introduce information into the article that does not have sources to back it up regardless of whether it is the truth or not. Good luck Zoo  Pro  09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have re-cited and re-written what seems to be the most contentious section from an outside point of view (I live in the United States, have never been to Australia, and am only now learning about Australian Zoos through working on WikiProject Zoo). From what I've seen so far (compare the speech in parliament with the original tone of the WP article), I'm sure there is more back story than I can find, but I have eliminated dead links and restricted myself to the facts that are currently verifiable and to the tone of the articles that I am reading. I have only gone through one paragraph worth of citations, but I will continue down the list over the next couple of weeks. Please be patient. Jumping in with obvious point of view statements (even to counter other point of view statements) will only get you in trouble. If you have other verifiable sources that you think I can use, you can post them on the article talk page. Donlammers (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)