User talk:MysouffDumas

January 2014
Hello, I'm HCA. Your recent edit to the page Boa (genus) appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Learn something before editing about it HCA (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything incorrect about the statement that some organizations devoted to animal protection don't support the keeping of boas as pets. What would you consider a reliable source if not the BBC? I would be glad to supply another few.MysouffDumas (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your "sources" are merely repeating the uninformed propaganda of extremist animal-rights fringe groups. These sentiments have no place in descriptions of the reptile taxa in question.  You can find sources for creationism and alien abduction too; doesn't mean the ideas are worth including on WP. HCA (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

that's an unbelievable statement of bias and passion, which I think would be great for you to place on a talk page associated with the entry. The issue of whether people should keep the animals privately is a subject for public discussion, and it has a basis in social, cultural, and public safety concerns. These are factual reports of people taking a public position that they should not be kept privately. Their inclusion alongside of descriptions of the reptile taxa in question is legitimate. MysouffDumas (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Horseshit. None of the references in your edit are factual - they're mere opinion pieces by individuals and groups. One doesn't even say what you think it does - it merely points out that one particular species is only appropriate for advanced keepers. These have no more place on the biological pages of these species than references saying "Many people find this species attractively colored." It's irrelevant, pure opinion, and unencyclopedic. At *most*, it could be added to pages about the ethics of keeping pets as a whole or exotic animals in particular, but not to the species page. And the addition to the USARK page is pure violation of WP:UNDUE due to the stub nature of that page. You're clearly intent on promoting this view, but WP is not the place to do so, and the species description pages certainly aren't. Things that belong on those pages are facts like scale-counts, geographic ranges, dentition, taxonomic history, morphology, life history and behaviors. If you wouldn't find it in a scientific paper, it doesn't belong on the taxon-specific pages, period, end of story. HCA (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)