This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
I have been a stern critic of this as a draft, and applaud the main contributing editor's efforts to bring it into line with our policies. I see the main namespace as the best place for further development, and so I have accepted it.
FiddleFaddle15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I have noted that an article on this topic was created in main namespace and subsequently deleted as part of the scandal of rogue editors requesting money to allegedly improve non viable articles. The main contributing editor was a victim of this scam.
FiddleFaddle15:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
This comment during the draft process reflects that sorry chapter of events: "
Comment:Note to reviewers: - although this article appears on the list at
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles, the present draft existed before OM "adopted" it and asked its author for money, and should therefore be considered on its own merits.
JohnCD (
talk) 22:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)" I have brought this forward form the article history to place on this talk page, complete with signature and date and time stamp.
FiddleFaddle15:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Unclear references
There are, currently, two competing reference numbering schemes running. Some of these seem to be external links. Please see See
Wikipedia:External links to see what is and is not allowed. Once this is handles the banner I just placed on the article may be removed.
FiddleFaddle17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I hope I have clarified the reference numbering. It seems ok to me now but if it is still wrong I will need some extra help please. Also I have deleted two external links that were linked to YouTube films, which although directly relate to hunt monitors and hunt prosecutions, I was not sure if they came within the rules of using external links. Thank you Tim for your patience.
Zinfandelorganic (
talk)
16:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply