User talk:MikeHobday

Welcome!

Hello, MikeHobday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — ciphergoth 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hunting Act 2004

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Computerjoe 13:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the template you're trying to subst in here. Nevertheless, aren't all users POV users, in that all users have a POV? If you mean "user who violates NPOV in their edits" then I entirely disagree - all the edits I've seen seek to flesh out one side of the argument while scrupulously maintaining NPOV. If you disagree with an edit please deal with it by the usual means (your own edits, Talk pages etc) and not by saying rude things on Talk pages. — ciphergoth 13:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the wrong name. I will change that. The user's edits to Hunting Act 2004 after further reading do not seem to be POV. I meant a user who violates NPOV. Anyhow, in my view they were in written in the wrong style - so I stand by my revert but withdraw any warning messages. I'm sorry for the confusion I've caused. Computerjoe 13:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Noting that, one month later, no one has significantly changed the style of the text in question. (though there may always be scope to do so) MikeHobday 14:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

hello

HI.. i asked u a question a while ago - about fox hunting in australia.. and as i do my wiki in batches- ( dictated on how oft i get reverted and/or boredem) i dont know if you answered me or not??? and i cant find what i actually wrote (too old???) Can you refresh me?? thanks Cilstr 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If your question was this one[1], then the answer is that I have no idea. MikeHobday 07:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hare coursing

Hello mike,i have done my best to tidy up the hare coursing article and tried to get it to NPOV.Feel free to tidy it up more and incorporate my points.Sorry if i have confused you!I did not mean to have a large history on that pageIan Davies Friend 19:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A difficult process, but I think we are getting there together! MikeHobday 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining editorial quality on hare coursing seems to be a monumental task at the moment; it's more than I can face for sure. I am tempted to suggest that we ask some of the cooler-headed pro-hunt editors like User:Rorybowman to help out just to reduce the workload - what do you think? — ciphergoth 09:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. You know him better than me I feel. Do you want to approach him? MikeHobday 12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Inexperienced?Dont think so cip or mike(maybe cip=mike????),considering i am involved in hare coursing as long as i can remember and know more about the sport than the two of you will ever know ,no offence,i would have to disagree.I think that maybe you should stick to the british coursing bit not the Irish. I can clearly see that you are ganging up on me?Trying to add a bit of wood to the fire,eh?Trying to agitate me.Rorybowman is not involved in coursing from what i can make out but then again i could be wrong. Mike your organisations members have no motive for "stalking" hunters around the countryside and calling us abusers,which is a very strong word,which is funny in a way as the cooper and sires articles prove that only a few actually have motives(fromer huntsmen who maybe were mistreated in some way etc.) and like i have pointed out on the talk page that they recruit people who do not have any motive for hating hunters and in fact do not know much about hunting when they first join.I think it has comparissons to a cult.I guarantee you that you dont have people queing up to join your organisation,the truth is basically that nobody really cares mike. Now enough of this,lets make the article 50-50 and fair? Ian Davies Friend 18:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean only that you perhaps aren't an experienced Wikipedia editor; I'm not saying anything about your coursing experience. When I asked Rorybowman for help I thought he was also pro-coursing; I'm happy to get help from other pro-coursing people to help maintain editorial quality. Since both of us edit under our real names and have left a decent trace in the world, it's pretty easy to check that neither of us is the other's sock puppet. — ciphergoth 20:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok.I feel very strong towards leaving peoples personal lives out of this.Im sure you agree.I feel that the article was more in favour of anti-coursing.So i change it so that people will get a good idea of the good side of coursing.Now time to tidy up the article!Ian davies friend 20:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian, Perhaps we have different understandings of the meaning of 'NPOV'? Perhaps my understanding is wrong? It is clear to me that you have added considerable useful information to the hare coursing article. But you occasionally have a tendency to repeat yourself. And occasionally (it seems to me) to lose your temper. Apologies if this isn't true. I am not sure why your response to the '40 hares die at Wexford' story is not to research the issue and see if there is an alternative explanation for the deaths but to be slightly personal and abusive. Clearly, we have different views. But I hope that we can both agree on factual points. MikeHobday 23:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike i have tidied it up considerbly.In response to your claim that im "slightly personal and abusive" is totally wrong not once have i called you something bad or gone against the wikipedia guidelines (except for NPOV which is obviously not abusive) as to me they are personal issues.Believe it or not Mike but i agree with you on the Wexford issue but to me it was a virus not mypotaphy(spelt wrong).Again i think this article is finished and we should move on.Ian davies friend 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baiting

Welcome aboard, I thought I was going to be the sole member -:) SirIsaacBrock 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

League Against Cruel Sports

Is it a charity Category:Animal charities? It should fit into one of the many sub +cats Category:Animal welfare. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Difficult one. It is neither an animal rights group nor a charity, though it does own a charity for some of its operations (quite a common arrangement amongst UK campaigning groups). In US terms, it is "not for profit." I wonder if there should be a sub category for animal welfare groups, which I could help to populate? MikeHobday 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamish Ross

Look mate, ffs stop putting these ridiculous sockpuppet tags on people's user pages. It's really not on. the days of Hamihs Ross' vandalism have long passed, just let us get on with campaigning for the upkeep of valid articles please.--84.64.33.168 13:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Hamish Ross has been blocked for seven days till April 19 [2]. Why not respect that decision, cool down for a couple of days and come back positively then? Otherwise, I fear that stronger penalities might be imposed. MikeHobday 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusations

Both me and User:Gypsy Eyes are the same person. We are emphatically not to do with Hamish Ross, and I would like you to retract these accusations. (I'm nothing to do with the above person either) 83.146.55.85 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to share a strong interest in the late Nudds image and the late Hamish Ross page. You also seem to share a radical editting style to other people's user pages. Saying that it is "suspected" that you "may" be a "sock puppet or impersonator" does not seem unreasonable. However, you might want to read the last sentence of Wp:sockpuppet#When questions arise. If I am wrong, then of course I apologise. MikeHobday 16:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, fair enough - I've asked the people there to prove that I'm not a sockpuppet, so hopefully we should have confirmation in a couple of days anwyay. 83.146.55.85 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad it's all sorted now - I'll be using this user account from now on to simplify things (especially as I'm on a dynamic ip and that IP has now disappeared into the ether...) Gypsy Eyes 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Thanks for you comments here. It's nice to see a few isolated voices of sanity on an issue that has been causing me a lot of wiki-stress recently. It looks like the "cabal" of wikipologists will prevail this time (as is the nature of the adverse selection of DRV), but the responses of a few experienced wikipedians (yourself included) prevented me from taking a very long hiatus from the project over this issue. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Upland hunting

Thanks for the feedback. I was not aware that Upland hunting was a US term. The techniques described are correct for Upland hunting in the US. If the techniques are US specific and the name is as well, is that bad? I mean if it is an US activity, what else other than the tactics used by persons in the US should be included? I have added a reference to the UK that may serve. Take a look. Thanks.--Counsel 20:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was cleaning up my page and noticed that I did not answer your question. You asked 'Do I deduce, from your helpful reference to UK rough shooting that 'upland hunting' does not include the UK 'driven shooting' where lines of (human) beaters flush the birds into the air to be shot? MikeHobday 06:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)'. The short answer is yes. There are some instances of what is called a cornfield drive in which pheasants are driven, but these are rare and generally involve wild birds rather than pen-raised birds. Generally a cornfield drive is considered something of a relic of the past where farmers attempted to put some extra meet on the table after harvesting a crop. Even in such circumstances, the shoot was often organized by placing shooter around the field and sending dogs in to flush the birds out. We do not have the tradition of a large driven shoot as I understand you do in the UK. Nor do we have the tradition of tower-shooting. I generally distinguish a shoot from a hunt in that a shoot requires little questing for game and is generally less sporting. I am sure that some would lump a drive in with "Upland Hunting" as the quarry is the same. That said the vast, vast majority of upland hunting in the United States involves pursuing wild game birds in their native habitat with a flushing dog or pointer. While on the subject, one difference between Upland Hunting and rough shooting is that dogs in the US that are trained to find birds are expected to ignore other small game such as rabbits or hares. A hunters whose dog pointed a rabbit should expect a good deal of ribbing from his buddies after the hunt. I understand that dogs there are considered praiseworthy for finding both.--Counsel 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-hunting

Hello, Mike! If you would, could you look at the anti-hunting article again? I added some references under the current issues section, regarding unintended consequences. Maybe you can find some others?

Somewhere between our points of view is probably a NPOV, especially as describes recent (past 40 years of) history of the antihunting movement, so I was wondering if you could write up something describing it, using a footnote reference style if possible. Some of these articles are a mishmash of half done references.

Also, I'm thinking of moving and expanding a couple of words I wrote on the hunting article and was wondering if Wikipedia approved of such moves? It is all so confusing for a newby such as myself. Trilobitealive 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

anti-hunting Next Question

Mike, if you would from your perspective as an expert in the field can you concisely tell me (very briefly please), with substantiated references, what exactly is the unifying perspective and goal of anti-hunting? To me it seems that anti-hunting laws have as their end goal the desire to prevent hunting for prevention's sake as opposed to conservation laws which coincidentally prevent or regulate hunting for other reasons. Trilobitealive 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will not think this reply trite, but what makes you so sure that the anti hunting movement has a "unifying perspective and goal", other than (obviously) to promote animal welfare or to oppose hunting? I have no reason to suspect that it does. To a degree, I suspect that the extent to which any movement has such a perspective and goal is demonstrated by the extent to which it is able to form stable coalitions. MikeHobday 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I think that as the world becomes more politicized anti-hunting becomes the 'line in the sand' or shibboleth which marks the difference between two large and often overlapping groups of people. For instance I'm pro hunting in the sense of stalking animals for food or to improve the herd but am anti hunting in the sense of disliking all those rich Brits on horses out damaging people's gardens and scaring the livestock. But if I'm forced to choose sides then I'd have to choose the pro side long enough to defend against the abolitionists...then I'd regulate from within.

Concerning differences of opinion on the Hunting article

1) I've posted my reasons for reverting your reversion...this gets complicated as I view you as a mentor and probably a good role model in terms of learning bold Wikipedia editing...in large part the reversion is because I agree with your presentation of need to remove politicization but I believe you're uneccessarily injecting your politics. 2) I didn't revert your changes of the word harvest nor the other nibble around the introduction yet as I think this might be a case where we are divided by a common language. In the American vernacular harvest is the standard term. We are not out to harm animals, in fact a large number of us traditional conservationists think of controlled harvest as being the only way to live up to the evolutionary responsibility our species took when we chose to become the world's apex preditor after the Younger Dryas. I will demonstrate why this becomes important with 3 US state or federal government references to the standard term, plus a radical politicized reference opposing it: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/populationstatus2005/huntingstats.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2002/n02-011.html http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/harvest/1999/99cougar.htm http://www.veganvanguard.com/vegism/hunting_lexicon.html

In any regard, I value your editing skill and your forthrightness to explain your stance and hope to continue to learn from you. Trilobitealive 00:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Trilobitealive 00:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Divided by a common language?

I found an interesting link with some comments by Dawkins on the difference between UK and US languages and cultures: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/divided_by_a_co.html#more The more I think about it the more I wonder if there should be a wider recognition that the two are not just dialects but have evolved separately for 200 years, since The War of 1812, which was our second war for independence. Trilobitealive 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Divided in many ways. Interesting that the references in Wikipedia to the 1812 war says, "The war is scarcely remembered in Britain because it was overshadowed by the far larger, more dramatic and more influential triumph over Napoleon." If one said, "scarcely taught", that would be an exaggeration! You've seen the article American english I assume? Hunting is, of course, a good example of the same word having significantly different meanings. MikeHobday 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Trophy hunting

Mike I thought you might want to weigh in on Talk:Trophy hunting. This little article seems to be going nowhere and probably needs to be rolled into the larger article. Trilobitealive 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

LACS article

Thanks for your help with user PBurns3711 - i was trying to expand the article when this guy started to get involved putting in blatant anti-LACS propaganda and displaying all the intelligence to be expected from one of his beliefs.

I am determined that the LACS article reflect this important organisation properly and that any criticism be devoid of the manifest bias exemplified by this seemingly rather unfortunate individual and any of his ilk.

To this end your assistance is greatly appreciated.

All the best GWP 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The League

Thanks Mike - I will add all of the above when time permits.

For now, user PBurns3711 is back on the page deleting wholesale accurate information and replacing it with loaded, lop-sided anti-League propaganda.

I'd appreciate your continued support in this matter as he actually seems to have upped the ante and his last move was to delete the entire history and replace with pro-hunt fallacy.

Cheers GWP 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about philosophical orientation

Mike, could you tell me if the LACS is an animal Rights group or an animal Welfare group? Thanks. Trilobitealive 05:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an animal welfare group. For example, I've just done a search of the website.[3] There are 141 pages with the phrase "animal welfare" and four with the phrase "animal rights" (of which two use the phrase only to contrast it with the League's position). MikeHobday 08:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mike

It was a pleasure learning about Wikipedia editing. You are a good teacher and I wanted to give you my personal warmest regards. I made the mistake of trying to do some needed edits on the Animal rights page and learned that the rules do not apply equally to all. It seems that at least one member of the administration here is dangeously radical. I'm now convinced that he/she is a games player who treats junior editors much the same as your British fox hunters treat their foxes. He/she appears fully beyond the edge and, looking at their history on admin pages and the google record, has a habit of nasty retaliations against those who challenge him/her. Please pass on my regards to Counsel and tell him that I think the both of you can keep one another straight. (One personal note of caution for any AW person or conservationist who sometimes associates with AR people: according to historian Crane Brinton, when one is a moderate reformer one's worst enemies and the people most dangerous to them are not those more conservative, but rather the radicals.) ;^) Trilobitealive 15:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks. I am very sorry to see you leave Wikipedia. I have passed your remarks to User:Floridan. I think your cautionary note is true (and works both ways!). MikeHobday 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard Dogs and Hunting Ethics

Mike, here is an article from a blog that argues that hard dogs are not a result of breeding for hunting, but rather for baiting and fighting. You may not like the author, however :). [\http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2004/12/sad-rise-of-hard-dogs.html

If you have not read his blog before, you should start, if only for the "know your enemy" quality that Sun Tzu would have advised. Here is a good one on that note: http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/search?q=%22canned+hunt%22

It is a long read, but I think that you might agree with some of it. Granted he does some name calling that is off-putting, but I think that if all hunters spent the time thinking about what they are doing that he has done, the debate would be much smaller.--Counsel 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to believe its the same man! MikeHobday 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been interesting watching the discourse on the various pages over which this controversy has been spread. It seems that both sides have decided that the cartoon version of the other is reality.--Counsel 03:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot tagging WikiProject Spain

Hi, Mike! I've moved the post you made about Bullfighting and WikiProject Spain to the project talk page. The short answer is to feel free to delete the tag if it doesn't belong on a particular article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spain tag

The placement of a WikiProject Spain tag is not an assertion that it is the only tag which is appropriate, simply that it is one of the tags which is appropriate. The fact that Bullfighting is found outside of Spain means that other WikiProjects may, and in fact have, placed their tags on the article as well (there are many articles within the scope of multiple WikiProjects). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EspanaViva (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Bloodless bullfighting does not take place in Spain, so tagging it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain is inappropriate. Yet User:SatyrBot was set to mark everything to do with bullfighting as part of the project. There are many elements of Bullfighting that are not Spanish. MikeHobday 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rv on Bullfighting

Thanks. User:Pebs96 feels she owns the entirety of the Bloodless bullfighting article and anything else she's uploaded to en-wiki. fethers 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

tx

Dear Michael, the list is present on it. wiki and it is correct... Uther is not a vamdal in ablolutly.. he is a vandal when destry the work of another user... flavio/Tigre reietta 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check the Wikipedia policy at WP:Assume good faith. The list of sub species is disputed. For example, [4] says: "The taxonomy of the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is still somewhat equivocal and there have been 48 subspecies of Vulpes vulpes proposed. The problem arises in that these subspecies are -- in most instances -- poorly defined and, as such, different researchers have different ideas of how many subspecies are valid. In their Atlas of European Mammals, Anthony Mitchell-Jones and his co-workers consider a maximum of five -- more likely four -- of the European subspecies to have any true validity." Remember also, that every time youmake an edit, you are advised: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." MikeHobday 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Category Animal Rights Legislation

You're probably right that animal welfare legislation is the better title for the category. After reading the articles animal rights and animal welfare, I agree that these laws are more to do with the latter. Kurando | ^_^ 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal Trapping

I was wondering how the external link to the league against cruel sports 'campaign against snares' on the Animal trapping page contributes to the article. Bugguyak 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By providing access to additional information without stuffing the article. MikeHobday 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet, I see an internal link to the league against cruel sports as well as an external link stuffed in the snares [[5]] paragraph in the body of the article. Also, are you not a paid official with this organization? Bugguyak 00:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like it, be bold and edit. I don't own the article. MikeHobday 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, already done. Just thought it was good form to discuss controversial topics first. Bugguyak 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

sorry about the edits there my friend - just having a little fun --Snizlemenizzle (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pruebas de campo.jpg

Besides being against ethical hunting standards, where trainers use scents to train dogs and not live animals on a leash (as in that photo), it is not a photo of hunting with dogs as much as it is so-called "training" of dogs. It should be removed as not representative of modern hunting with dogs. Bugguyak (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of unethical things happen and can be included in an encyclopedia. But the issue of whether this photo is representative is entirely valid. That said, there might be a place for language on dog training somewhere. MikeHobday (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hunt monitors

I think that's a little petty Mike. The need for citations doesn't apply to facts which are common knowledge to anyone with a general knowledge of the subject, and i'm sure you know as well as I do that trespassing is standard practice for monitors. That said, if you insist, i'm sure I can find a source somewhere. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think [6] applies. I think the statement false, but, assuming good faith, I thought I'd give you a chance to investigate this instead of reverting. MikeHobday (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fox hunting

Hi, I saw your note about the foxing-hunting FAC, [7] but I see it's been closed already, which is unusual after only six days. I've left a query about it, [8] in case you want to add a comment -- though you may be okay with it being closed, if you've decided not to do any more work on it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox Hunting

Would you care to join me for a spot of fox hunting old chap? Spiffing! Glad that you'll oblige. Tally ho!