DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Nycclive

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

September 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm MrOllie, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that e-collars used for containment systems is outlawed in Scotland is untrue and the reference cited (an article by Zazie (widely known as crazy) Todd is inaccurate. If it was the law then the act of parliament should have been quoted (there is none) Obviously there is no document to reference that says there is no law making them illegal in the same way as there is no document to reference to say there is no law making eating good food illegal. Whoever added the statement that e-collars are illegal in Scotland had no reliable published source and it should be removed. Nycclive (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There can be no reliable published source that supports the frequent references in the article that say the mechanism of "shock" collars depends on pain and fear - because that is not true for all ways of using shock collars. There may be evidence suggesting that when the collar is used in certain ways in limited experiments being described but that is not what is stated. I have tried to improve the entry but removing notes that try to help people think critically and allow misinformation supported by inaccurate sources to stand just makes Wikipedia useless. Nycclive (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean to sound unappreciative of your advice but I wonder about your motivation. Nycclive (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia we have to follow what is in the cited reliable sources, not the personal opinions of editors, and we certainly do not insert our opinions directly into the article as you did. And there is indeed a source, which is clearly cited. My 'motivation' is to maintain this encyclopedia according to its policies. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is incorrect. Nycclive (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Containment systems using e-collars (shock collars) are NOT illegal in Scotland as currently stated in the entry. Show me a RELIABLE source that states that hey are, otherwise you are supporting misinformation supposrted by an UNRELIABLE source. Nycclive (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't rule a source to be UNRELIABLE just because an anonymous person says it is. If it is incorrect, we would need another reliable source contradicting it to change the article. We can't just take your word for it. MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there even be a source saying that there is no law against something in Scotland? Can you find a source to say there is no law against speaking in Scotland? Do you deny that it is true?Who decided that source was reliable. Why did you not check yourself before reverting to FALSE information on Wikipedia. The whole section on the entry validated by that incorrect source should be removed. Nycclive (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a peer reviewed academic journal from a reputable publisher, Wikipedia always considers them to be reliable. This is all covered in the links embedded in the above message, you should read them. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each book, article, or other source needs to be credible for supporting the particular claim(s) it supports. In case of a dispute, editors need to be able to explain why they relied on that source. Nycclive (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Needs to be credible' does not mean that you personally agree with its content. But now we're talking in circles. I do not plan to respond to this thread again, so do not be surprised if I do not respond to any further questions. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did. CHow an you answer my question? Why should there be a source that says a law that does not exist, does not exist? Nycclive (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and reversions are disruptive and result in an inaccurate entry. With what authority do you make your threats. You have still not answered my questions " Why should there be a source that says a law that does not exist, does not exist?"
"Why should there even be a source saying that there is no law against something in Scotland? Can you find a source to say there is no law against speaking in Scotland? Do you deny that it is true?Who decided that source was reliable. Why did you not check yourself before reverting to FALSE information on Wikipedia"
My initial edits adding simple notes were accurate, deliberately minimal, constructive and not disruptive.
There are other sections of the entry that contain what you would class as original research with no source cited. eg.
"Comparing pain levels: evaluating different amperages
The intensity of pain caused by electric current can vary significantly due to small changes in amperage. Furthermore, this pain can be further amplified by adjusting the pulse rate and duration. Other factors such as voltage, current, waveform, and frequency of the waveform are not particularly relevant when it comes to assessing the level of pain. While these factors can be used to calculate the amount of energy applied in Joules, they do not indicate the actual intensity of the stimulus or how it will be perceived by the recipient."
So presumably you have no argument with editing that out.
Many of the sources cited actually contain contradictions the sections that they are attached to. For instance quoting Schalke et al 2007 ref 44 in the entry "This led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators." completely contradicting the entry.
Edits by K9Informer have also been removed despite adding useful information to the entry. Nycclive (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are cited throughout the article, and the summary paragraph is plainly support by the citations in the rest of the section. Editorializing and deleting sections of the article you disagree with is plainly disruption. You should stop. MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. That is only your opinion. The whole paragraph contains no citation. It was opinion.
What about the other points? Not just your unsubstantiated opinions please as you seem to be largely ignorant of the subject. Have you read the citations to be able to say that? Listing citations for a few articles that do not show effectiveness of a tool does not show that NO studies show that the tool is not effective, a statement that is patently absurd, and yet included in the entry. Nycclive (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're now making personal attacks, useful discussion has ended. Before I go, I will reiterate: do not delete chunks of the article, and do not add editorializing again. Wikipedia does not tolerate tendentious editing. MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attack? My perception is that, as in many other entries where you have chosen to revert or delete other peoples edits, you do so without knowledge of the subject. That is clear from your own talk page going back to 2008. You have shut down discusion without answering the most pertinent question that would have allowed a constructive addition to the entry and that was how can I find a source that shows a law that does not exist in Scotland does not exist, and so justify deleting the false information justified by the erroneous source, the article by hugely biased commentator Zazie Todds. On the one hand you delete an edit on the basis it has no supporting citation, on the other you revert the deletion of a paragraph that is not supported by a citation on the basis of your opinion. Nycclive (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really your response MrOllie? Bullying because you have no answer to justify your disruptive and non constructive editing?
You win Wikipedia readers lose.
I did not come to Wikipedia to pass time. I wanted to see what was written about e-collars and saw factual errors. My first response was to add a simple note, and not remove what I was not sure about. You have ended up leaving irrelevant cites and removing relevant cites and balanced content. Nycclive (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]