Talk:Edmonton Valley Zoo

message: I don't understand why this edit has been undone twice by 117Avenue, including once since being asked to discuss it. The edit is sourced to a major Canadian newspaper, it's two years more current than any other ref we have (and we do say that the controversy is "current"), it's balanced since it gives Toronto Council's position and Edmonton's Mayor's response, and the fact that Canada's largest city's council is passing motions about Lucy seems notable to me. What's the problem? Meters (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: People of all expertise have been asking for Lucy to move, from small petitions, to celebrities and experts. These aren't listed, why should the most current? 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When you're asked to discuss something, the proper thing to do is to discuss it BEFORE referting again. You ignored my first request to discuss, and now you've reverted me again before bothering to discuss. That's 3 reverts by you on this, two after beoing asked to discuss the issue. It's getting hard to assume good faith. I could revertt you again, but instead I'll ask you to self-revert while we discuss this, so that we can reach an agreement. Meters (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

text: As I said, it's notable because Canada's largest city's council is passing motions about Lucy. Cities don't normally interfere in eash other's business like that. That seems at least as notable as the mention of a former game show host's concerns, which we do mention. Meters (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: re theh edit summary here. I'm trying to follow WP:BRD. You made an edit I disagreed with, I reverted you and asked you to discuss it (twice now). Your edit happened to be a revert, but it wasn't to my edit. If you think that BRD means I should have discussed your edit before I reverted, well, so be it. Sorry. Either way, how do you justify continuing your reverts without discussing? As for the issue of WP:POV, I don't see it. Please explain how this edit violates neutral point of view. It's in the controversy section, and it covers  both Toronto's actions and Edmonton's mayor's response. Sourced, balanced, and on topic. Where's the neutrality problem? Meters (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors should focus on providing up-to-date information, instead of squabbling over "issues". (See: 'Master Plan 2005', below). ~Thanks, ~E: 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nov 28 Toronto City Council 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Edmonton Valley Zoo which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/allow-a-panel-of-external-elephant-experts-to-examine-lucy
*:Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Edmonton Valley Zoo]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Edmonton Valley Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003063305/http://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_recreation/attractions/edmonton_valley_zoo/construction.aspx to http://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_recreation/attractions/edmonton_valley_zoo/construction.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified