User talk:Kategreen77

hi there (whaling edit)
Hi there,

I just wanted to explain why I reverted one of your edits on the whaling article (your other ones were good, as far as I could see).

To this text...

''[Someone-or-other] said that the average time taken for a whale to die after being shot was the same as or less than that of animals killed by big game hunters on safari. Whalers also say that the free-roaming lifestyle of whales followed by a quick death is less cruel than the long-term suffering of factory-farmed animals.''

..you added:

''This is disputed by animal welfare experts; WSPA released a report in 2008 entitled Whaling: Defying international commitments to animal welfare? , in which the welfare implications of whaling are compared – unfavorably – with a culturally neutral standard for animal welfare in the form of slaughter guidelines from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).''

I've deleted that because as far as I could see (and I did take a look at the report), it only refers to *slaughter* standards, whereas if you read the first part again, particularly the last sentence, the whalers' argument goes considerably beyond the scope of the simple moment (or moments!) of slaughter -- it's saying whales' *lives* have been free, as opposed to those of farmed, particularly factory-farmed animals, and that this should be taken into account in terms of the animal-welfare argument between whaling and farming. Therefore I don't really see it as a valid riposte.

If you wanted to dispute the part about the safari standards, again I didn't see anything about safari in that report (just did a word-search for 'safari' so I'm assuming there isn't), however, if you did want to dispute that part, I would advise putting it directly after that sentence (ie in between the two sentences I quoted in the first portion).

Hope that all makes sense. Anyway I did write an edit summary, but just wanted to drop you a line so it didn't seem rude or aggressive (having edits outright reverted can be a bit in-your-face when it happens to you, I know from personal experience!)

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, BTW, it looks like you've just joined Wikipedia! You might want to check these out, you can decorate your user page with them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * Thanks for explaining your edit, I hope this is the right place to respond (you are right - I am new to Wiki and am working my way through the many - if helpful - help pages!).


 * As the second sentence, after the safari reference, starts with 'Whalers also say..', I had assumed these were separate points and was seeking to offer balance only to the second sentence, regarding the free-range issue. I wasn't addressing the safari point.


 * From a welfarist perspective (and as we have heard 'what whalers say' with no citation, I think it is appropriate to put this), the fact that the an animal suffers during slaughter is a different issue than whether it suffers during life. A happy life does not excuse a prolonged slaughter. I do see your point, that this does not flow exactly on from the argument before. I will think about how to reword it but may well add the report back in, as it was written by scientists and adds to the debate, it's not an emotional response to whaling, which would offer little food for thought.


 * At this year's IWC meeting several commissioners supported a move to work with or consult the OIE on this issue at the 2009 meeting, so this report will also help flag their potential role for those who follow the debate closely.


 * Thanks and best wishes Kategreen77 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hiya


 * Thanks for your reply. In terms of general Wikipedia practice, most people usually respond at the other person's talk page (you click the 'talk' hyperlink after their name and you're there) as this means they will get a notification that they've received a message. But some people prefer to respond on the same page, as you've done -- doesn't matter, except that this way it's relying on the other person to check for it, I guess.


 * Actually it's kind of nicer having it all on the same page, as you (and anyone else) can actually follow the conversation! (Check most people's talk pages and you will see what I mean -- it's always just one side visible).


 * As to your edit, I've just shifted the position slightly (and the wording, very slightly) to where it fits in with the overall paragraph, IMHO -- hope you approve :-) I don't think it's redundant or irrelevant info or anything.


 * As to the unreferenced nature of the certain points, the best thing to do (if you think it's an issue) is just add a 'citation needed' tag (can't remember off-hand how to do these, but if you find one and copy-and-paste the html it will do the trick). They do look a bit clunky, but you definitely shouldn't delete info just because it's unreferenced (not that you suggested that of course). Hopefully someone will come along (some day!) and find a reference for it, otherwise at least readers are made aware that it is unreferenced.


 * Anyway we are probably vaguely on opposite sides of the whaling issue, at a guess ;-) but I'm all for presenting both sides in a neutral manner (as per Wikipedia guidelines). Actually compared to some of the articles I've edited on, this one seems like nothing in terms of controversiality! (Hint: don't ever edit anything on recent Balkan history, particularly not Bosnia or Kosovo :-)


 * Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again
 * That edit looks fair. I think the whole sub section could be better organised - it jumps around rather.
 * Best wishes Kategreen77 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:KundParkBearWSPA.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KundParkBearWSPA.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:KundParkBearWSPA.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KundParkBearWSPA.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)