Trueanimalcaring
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Humane Society of the United States. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes thank you--Trueanimalcaring (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. What is so wrong with the Humane Society of the United States? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, I appreciate your question and would be more than happy to answer in another forum. My concern here is the constant policing of HSUS related Wiki pages and contributed facts are instantly removed. After reviewing contributions and edits from Dodo bird, one of the persons policing HSUS related pages, I found he has a long history of placing HSUS and other pro-animal activists groups links and articles on many Wiki pages. After having my edits removed because they are considered "point of view" facts, I would believe HSUS related contributions would also be considered "point of view" since they are a political animal activist group. True facts cannot be gathered from such resources yet Dodo bird cites me as a "vandal" for removing them. I am not alone here in questioning why this is allowed. Placing pro-HSUS related articles and links confuse people in thinking these are facts, which they are not. Attempts to remove agenda driven content should not be labeled "vandalism". Thank you for your time.Trueanimalcaring (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, just curious why you didn't reply to my comment. What is your agenda/POV here? Thank! --Trueanimalcaring (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
December 2008
edit
The recent edit you made to No-kill shelter constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Vegan and HSUS/PeTa supporter
editSorry, but I don't say so private information to anybody I don't know. I don't want to be tagged, as an against- or pro- animal rights, as a person that eat meats, a person that no, or anything. Greetings. Akhran (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)