User talk:Parks1997

hi, Parks, let me make a couple of points. I am not uncritical of HSUS, but i think that criticisms belong in criticism sections, and I also think that Humanewatch is not a suitable source. (i have not seen a single other example of such claims coming in the first few lines of a description of an organization). I am concerned that among other things in recent weeks you have attempted to assign a new IRS designation to the HSUS, used the word "propaganda" in description of its activities, routinely cited claims by Humanewatch either redundantly or without third party verification or sources, sought to recast the organization's position on the keeping of wild animals as pets, and overturned dozens of edits that I offered in the interests of improving the entry, in order to restore a highly biased version that places the Humanewatch perspective at the heart of the entry rather than in the criticisms section. You are not conducting yourself according to the principles that guide the wikipedia experience. There is plenty of space and opportunity for criticism of HSUS but not on these lines. Why should your version of some weeks ago displace the numerous constructive edits I made, adding information on various positions, updating news on campaigns it pursues with links to third party sources, listing key personnel, improving grammar and syntax, sourcing key information on salary, income, spending, stature in the nonprofit sector,and so on. You ought not to cast or dismiss the positive contributions improperly as vandalism. that's not fair. if you want to add a section on wild animals as pets, or modify such information, find a way to do that. the evidence does not support the value of the Humanewatch criticism or the mischaracterization of the HSUS as an animal rights group as many others have pointed out through the years.Vetman (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Python curtus brongersmai a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parks1997, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Parks1997! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm Howicus. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Humane Society of the United States seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. http://www.humanewatch.org/ is not a good source for this information, they have a very obvious anti-HSUS bias. Please find a better source for that information. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Parks1997. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
Message added 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Parks1997. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla crying

Crying is neither an emotion, nor is it something exclusive to humans. It is a response to a state of emotion, rather than being the emotion itself. Please don't just remove images at random; in fact, the image of the gorilla gives a correct alternative perspective on the issue of crying. The article itself references Darwin's research on the topic of crying and its relation from humans to other animals; the image has every right to remain. Be more conscientious about your edits next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmwraith (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White savior narrative in film

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Talk:White savior narrative in film, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Agaminae edits

As I said in the edit description when I reversed your edit last time: if you look at the pages for those lizards, they say they're Agaminae. Please either leave them on the Agaminae page, or change their pages to reflect whatever subfamily they do belong in. Tamtrible (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]