User talk:FWOak

June 2014
Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that your recent contributions were reverted because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - I am contributor, FWOak and am asking that you reconsider your decision to delete my contributions to the AAT Page. Sections removed included:


 * Title: "Groups Supporting AAT"
 * Subtitle: “Pet Partners® Therapy Animal Program Affiliates & Community Partners
 * Sentence: A Pet Partners Affiliate is a Pet Partners group that helps train, evaluate as well as support our therapy animal teams in a local area.
 * Picture: puppy in training
 * External links (cited sources): Pet Partners & Delta Hearts of Gold

I felt that the additions I made did not change the meaning of an article - animal assisted therapy. The parent organization, Pet Partners link was also removed- a national group you originally shared in your article (Delta Society). I find it confusing that this link, part of the history of AAT was removed as “soapboxing” or advertising, even-though you allowed in your initial text.

Also of interest is the removal of a “dog with vest, being socialized” - How was that a COI? How is this “soapboxing?” or advertising? His vest says, “Pet me, I am friendly.” Our club has brown vests, not the green showcased (no logo also appeared on the dog or picture).

As for purpose in my additions: I have found that many, many individuals we visit with want to know more about HOW to become involved and WHERE to go for information. If you find that I have a COI, could you list some places where AAT is offered? Maybe several organizations – including the Parent Organization?

I hope you find the small added information helpful to the article and add the sections back as they adhere to the Policy Requirement set forth by Wikipedia. In essence: my additions supported ATT major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone.

I look forward to your response.

Respectfully, FWOak
 * I brought up the possibility of a conflict of interest because it very often applies in such situations.
 * As for the rest, bring it up on the article's talk page where the editors who removed the material (and anyone else) can discuss the concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)