Jump to content

Talk:Grazing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
I dislike threats
Line 36: Line 36:
:::::::::::That's rather obvious. Frankly, I'm giving you a week to begin the process of "globalizing" the article and then I'm removing the tag. If you aren't willing to do any work on the piece or can't be bothered to find adequate source material to help others to accomplish your goal, then it's a non-issue. My patience with tag-bombing is zero. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 02:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's rather obvious. Frankly, I'm giving you a week to begin the process of "globalizing" the article and then I'm removing the tag. If you aren't willing to do any work on the piece or can't be bothered to find adequate source material to help others to accomplish your goal, then it's a non-issue. My patience with tag-bombing is zero. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 02:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::: It doesn't work that way my friend. You have already been edit warring in this article. Revert my edits without addressing these issues, in one week or one day, and see what happens. [[User:Mark Marathon|Mark Marathon]] ([[User talk:Mark Marathon|talk]]) 04:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::: It doesn't work that way my friend. You have already been edit warring in this article. Revert my edits without addressing these issues, in one week or one day, and see what happens. [[User:Mark Marathon|Mark Marathon]] ([[User talk:Mark Marathon|talk]]) 04:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::2x removal of a tag and then initiating the talk page discussion here is not "edit-warring." In your case, reinserting a tag barely even counts as an "edit." I will remove the tag in a week or so unless someone shows they care and I will watch with fascination what happens, because I really dislike threatening bullies. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 09:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:49, 7 December 2014

Template:Vital article

Scope

Should this article also discuss grazing in an agricultural sense? Richard001 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin?

Should there be a disambiguation to when you graze your skin i.e roadrash?

Good point - added a disambiguation at the top linking to abrasion. Richard001 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americancentrism

Are grazers only located in the United States? What animals are grazers? Where is the article? Most of this article is about information that is irrelevant... Thanks for the trivia... Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PENHA conference on pastoralism

There were a couple of edits made citing only "PENHA conference on pastoralism". While something from that conference may be a RS, such a vague reference is not enough. Conferences typically have dozens of authors, speakers and poster presentations that, with a large spread of credibility. The fact that something was said or printed at a conference is not a reliable source. To be included we need a precise reference, specifically we will need the author of the statement, the presentation/publication where the statement was made and the source from which the editor derived that information (eg conference proceedings, radio transcript etc). The fact that an editor heard an audience member ask a question with a statement in it at the conference doesn't make it RS, yet by only citing the conference name, this may be all that it refers to. Wikipedia sources need to be able to be checked, and a conference name isn't enough to enable that to happen.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

There are two distinct uses of the term "Grazing", i.e. the animal behaviour, and the method of agriculture. Perhaps these should be split into separate articles, but for the moment I am going to restructure the article to make this difference clearer.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to split the article, as they are two sides of the same coin. But do you think that this article really needs a "globalization" tag? It seems silly. Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. I actually do think it needs splitting at some point. The two uses are fundamentally different and I think will eventually evolve into their own creations. As for the globalization tag, I did not put that on here and my edits toward the ethological approach of this term will hopefully avoid that sort of problem. But then there is the agricultural approach to the term....__DrChrissy (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MY thinking is to create or expand each of the relevant sections until there is enough information to create the spinoff; I like comprehensive articles over a bunch of Balkanized stubs. By the way, do you object to removal of the "globalize" tag? Seems only one person does, but he won't discuss here. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one who has refused to discuss this. You reverted my edits multiple times without initiating a discussion, in blatant violation of WP:BRD. You then place an offhand reference on the talk page, in the middle of the night, in the middle of discussion of a separate topic, with another editor. And when I don't respond within 24 hours, you start this crap about not wanting to discuss. You are not even attempting to resolve this in good faith. I have bad news for you: the tag has been on the article for several months. Since you are the only user who wants to remove it, WP:STATUSQUO wins. It's not up to me to justify to you why it should remain. It's up to you to convince me and everyone else that it should be removed. Just as importantly, the whole world does not consist of North America and Antarctica as you seem to think. When this article has an "In Agriculture" section covering the other 6 continents, you might have a defensible case for your edit warring. When multiple sections, such as "Patch Burning" are not very clearly North America specific ( FYI, there other grazers aside from cattle and bison, just as there are other continents aside from North America and Antarctica), you might have a defensible case for your edit waring. When multiple sections, such as "Benefits" do not cite just US examples, you might have a defensible case for your edit warring. Until then, ceas edit warring, and try discussing this in good faith.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. I removed the tag, which has been there for quite some tim. You restored it with a snotty edit summary. I removed it again (2x does not equal "multiple") and took the issue to talk, you can see by the time stamps. Your "middle of the night" is about 11:00 pm my time, WP is worldwide. Frankly, if you don't have any interest in adding any of the material you think is so desperately needed in this article, then you really have no standing with me. If you want to whine about a problem, you have a duty to do some of the work. I'm not wasting any more bandwidth on people like you. Do some work or go pound sand. Montanabw(talk) 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How you feel is of little concern to me. So long as the tag remains, I'm good.Mark Marathon (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather obvious. Frankly, I'm giving you a week to begin the process of "globalizing" the article and then I'm removing the tag. If you aren't willing to do any work on the piece or can't be bothered to find adequate source material to help others to accomplish your goal, then it's a non-issue. My patience with tag-bombing is zero. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work that way my friend. You have already been edit warring in this article. Revert my edits without addressing these issues, in one week or one day, and see what happens. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2x removal of a tag and then initiating the talk page discussion here is not "edit-warring." In your case, reinserting a tag barely even counts as an "edit." I will remove the tag in a week or so unless someone shows they care and I will watch with fascination what happens, because I really dislike threatening bullies. Montanabw(talk) 09:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]