User talk:SapereAudete

A new reference on PTED for you.

 * SapereAudete, Please do help with the work on the PTED article. Finding other references, apart from Linden, will help to prevent the article being deleted.  (Deletion is quite possible at the moment).  Here is one such recent publication on PTED by Claire Carter, it can be added as a reference for existing text on the page and/or a new sentence:  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061621000288


 * Thanks again for your offer of help with PTED, ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 10:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion, I am, however, not convinced of the quality of Carters article. I haven’t yet read the entire thing, but from what I can tell by now, there are a lot of questionable statements and conclusions that don’t really seem to hold water. Therefore I am not sure, if it’s worth including as a reference.
 * More importantly, however, I don’t see any reason at all, why deletion is supposed to be quite possible at the moment. The article is – as far as I can see – not nominated for deletion and backed up by more than enough literature. SapereAudete (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. I agree that several of the article's statements and conclusions are not referenced.  It appears that early author(s) of the article were not familiar with Wikipedia's etiquette of a reference from a NOTABLE source for each concept / idea / conclusion.  This is because wikipedia must not hold original thought (WP:OR).   Retro-fitting these references to a full article is a job for the original authors, not really wikignomes like ourselves.  (WP:GNOMEs )   But I also don't believe that chopping text that has no reference is the way forward for the article.  Assuming WP:GOODFAITH,  the unreferenced items in the article can be improved in the future.  Hopefully by the original contributor(s) of the material.   ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 15:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello, I'm Adakiko. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Domestic rabbit—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the content of the citation, it would appear to have been moved to another page. Please consider looking for the data on that website, checking the Wayback Machine on the access date mentioned in the citation of 2 October 2015 for that version. See wp:KDL (keep dead links). You could also add a failed verification. Adakiko (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is that I know the content of the paragraph I deleted to be baloney, as I am an experienced long-time rabbit owner and well-read in the current state of science concerning rabbit’s health. The reasons as to why the paragraph’s claims are wrong, are, however, too comprehensive to explain in a summary box. Putting anything about it onto the talk page would only result in me being bombarded with bullshit, as there is surprisingly much ideology behind the topic. This is why I chose a more innocent explanation instead. So far, I’ve never encountered one single viable scientific study to endorse House Rabbit Society’s claim of spayed/neutered, mixed-breed or rabbits kept indoors living longer than others. The only thing true in that paragraph is the higher life expectancy of dwarf breeds. Besides all of that, I personally don’t consider the page of a society that rarely ever cites any sources for its claims and whose content in many cases does not represent the current  state of science a viable source for Wikipedia. But if you can find any scientific sources to endorse what is written in the paragraph, feel free to restore it, otherwise it has no place on Wikipedia. SapereAudete (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)