Talk:Cow tipping/Archive 3

message: "The Statics of Cow Tipping" reference is given far too much play in the article. It assumes the cow is perfectly rigid and that its legs never move, bend or sway. See some of the posts above for variations on the calculations. PatriotSurvivor 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Statics of Cow Tipping 

message: I've had enough of the edit warring going on here. I'm fairly unconcerned about how the caption ends up (a number of acceptable alternatives have been proposed and, I'd say, gained consensus approval from all but a few editiors), but I'm now handing out warnings to EVERYONE who's been deleting text from the body of the article, and if you keep doing it, I will not hesitate to block folks for edit warring. We have at least one perfectly valid reference in there (from the London Times) so stop deleting this text claiming that it is unsourced. Stop deleting the "Parodies" section.
In fact, ...
Stop edit warring now!
Atlant 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because some idiot reporter wrote a 400 word column basically just re-telling the original research in that BC "study" doesn't make it a reliable source.  All that stuff is crap, and not encyclopedic. 66.186.45.226 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: *Oppose Cows are selectively bred and thus, not natural. They don't have a "natural state." —M (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that selective breeding applies to a cow's tipped or untipped status.  "Natural" reminds the reader that being tipped is not a cow's normal state; I do not believe that there are currently any breeds of cows that have been bred to be more, or less, likely to be tipped than other breeds.  If I'm wrong, please feel free to produce a reliable souce in the form of a journal article about the various breeds' risk of being tipped.  Frankly, this objection seems to me to be an attempt to keep an edit war going even after a reasonable consensus has been reached. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural is ambiguous and unnecessary, every position a cow is in is natural. IvoShandor 14:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely my point.Not a dog 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless of course it is being manipulated, the act of the tip would be unnatural but being tipped wouldn't be, it all depends on what is meant by natural, which shows the term's ambiguity. I removed it but if it's that important to the caption on this particular stub please by all means readd it. Woot. IvoShandor 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to a videogame screenshot in this article. Not a dog 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On "natural"

message: Going out on a limb here.
I'm wondering if treating this like an edit war is a mistake. This article will continue to attract amateur comics, each with a different idea of the best caption. That will be the majority of editors, so there will never be a real consensus. Can we just accept that every 4 hours another sophomore will change the caption? How broke is this really?
Some captions are more appropriate (per WP:TONE and whatnot) than others, but even the current release candidate caption (A cow in its natural upright state) is another attempt at forced humor. Perhaps this article can be considered just another WP:JOKE page, at least as far as the caption goes.
Ding the more aggressive editors with a WP:3RR as needed. Revert bad (uncivil, defamatory, offensive, copyvio, etc) comments. Otherwise, a revolving door. This won't be encyclopedic, but it might be the best we'll get. / edgarde 10:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone noticed that a picture of a cow standing up, unrelated to any cow tipping, adds nothing to the article and is completely worthless? If someone doesn't know what a cow looks like they can click the link to the cattle article. The cow standing up picture should be completely removed. Instead, by looking over past revisions, people have gradually removed relevant information from the article (like the trivia section which I added a small percentage back) until the article basically just became nothing but the same picture of a cow with various changing unfunny captions. SakotGrimshine 12:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Much as I like the cow, the image is probably the article's attractive nuisance. / edgarde 13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think removing the image altogether is a good idea - it adds nothing but headaches. Not a dog 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need to agree on a caption?

message: Can we start an archive ending at when this silly edit war started? Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (and see ). Not a dog 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I don't see how cow tipping could be considered anything other than animal abuse. Knocking over an animal for (drunken) enjoyment? Certainly isn't friendly. Not a dog 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse 

message: When was the first cow tipped?  Please do research on this, as wikipedia really needs it for this article.  —Gaff ταλκ 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Cow Tipping? 

message: A friend of mine, who grew up in a rural area, has said more than once that "cow tipping" doesn't really exist. I'm not saying she's right, but one thing she said rings pretty true. She said that when they went "cow tipping," it was really just a cover to go drink beer in a field at night. (Cheap nasty cans of warm beer, I believe were her exact words, but you get the idea.) Another person commented that they took people cow tipping like others took people snipe hunting; it was a cover to get people to go out in the woods and get left. I'm not saying cow tipping is always a cover for something else, but I think mention of this should be made in the article itself. Thoughts?  --Raulpascal 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a reliable source it constitutes original research which is strictly against Wikipedia policy, see original research policy. The article mentions that it is likely urban legend, that's good enough and can be sourced. IvoShandor 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else are we doing out there? 

message: I don't want to do it myself as I want consensus, but there's too many unneccessary external links here and they should be trimmed to three or less. SakotGrimshine 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, one urban legend link, one news item and one other ought to be sufficient. Should lose the picture too, it really is useless. Who doesn't know what a cow in its upright state looks like, one's first familiarization with cows is unlikely to be the Wikipedia article on cow tipping. Now a photo of a cow being tipped, that takes this article from stub class to B class awaiting GA review. Woot. IvoShandor 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with IvoShandor on all points. Not a dog 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links need trimming 

message: While discussing the references to cow tipping in popular culture above, I thought of this as an alternative to the rather pointless illustration currently adorning the article: how about a screen-grab from the trailer from the film Barnyard, namely at about 00:00:27? I'm not very familiar with the workings of image copyright in the context of Wikipedia, but wouldn't this come under very fair use? It's a fantastic illustration if it would. BigBlueFish 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative image 

message: What does this fellow think he is doing, thinking he owns this article and pushing his preferred "non-animal abuse", completely humorless version??? Mygawd, I think I need a cheeseburger. --C.m.jones 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Not a dog 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all seriousness Wikipedia isn't Uncyclopedia and the original you research you added spoiled the article. NAD isn't WP:OWNing the article he's following Wikipedia policy. BigBlueFish 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If NAD's an owner then I'm a co-owner, he just reverts faster. :) - Merzbow 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I owned this article that image and caption would've been gone long ago. (BTW, Cmjones has been blocked) Not a dog 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Not a dog]] and [[WP:OWN]] 

message: The problem with the photo is not so much the caption (which does read better as "An unsuspecting victim?"), as with the image itself.  This is an article on cow tipping. We need a picture either of a cow is the process of being tipped (aparrently a rare event to catch on film) or a tipped cow.  Since a tipped cow photo may be hard to find, I propose that we flip this photo vertically 180 degrees.  An upside down cow is at least quasi-tipped. —Gaff ταλκ 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed above, I agree with the suggestion to remove the image & caption altogether. Not a dog 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about my suggested alternative in the section above? BigBlueFish 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My hunch is that unless we are critiquing that particular screenshot, it would not be fair use to use it here merely for descriptive purposes. But I'm not a fair use expert. Not a dog 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with this photo. 

message: 
Reference #3 is irretrievable. Navou 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Riana ⁂ 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the article goes on AFD, it will have to be unprotected. Riana ⁂ 03:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with that, if you think its a good idea to unprotect at this juncture.  AFD is not exigent at this point in time.  What do you think about unprotecting?  Navou 03:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider holding off an AFD until the people involved in the edit war come to the talk page, but that's just my opinion. Could you perhaps leave a note on the talkpages of the people involved, inviting them to this conversation? Riana ⁂ 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can.  I'm about to go to bed, so tomorrow I'll add a note on the talk pages.  AFD can wait a few days.  I more than likely address my issues here before then also, perhaps someone with more knowledge of this, idea, can help improve this article.  Navou 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotected 

message: The topic itself, urban legend or no, seems notable enough for an article, I don't think edit warring is really a criteria for deletion, even if it is the lamest thing ever. Maybe merger is appropriate because of its length, but surely someone, somewhere has written reliably about this topic. Just my two cents, I don't really care if it gets deleted. IvoShandor 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please note that I prefer to fix the issues below rather than AFD.  My rationale, if I chose to nominate for AFD, is not edit warring.  Best regards, Navou 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regretted that part of my comment after I made it, sorry. But I think something can be done to make this more encyclopedic, obviously this concept exists and I think we can probably find something about it out there, I will do some searching as I have time. I think an AfD would be inappropriate because sources, at this juncture, are likely to be found. Now, say we search for those sources for a couple weeks and come up empty handed, then AfD it all day long, just my two cents and you have expressed your willingness to fix the article, so we shall see what we can do. IvoShandor 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm done.  Yeah, I'm going to do a little searching myself.  I think we need to give this article a more solid base.  I'm also going to check the library system here to see if I can't find anything published on this subject. Navou 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I hate having to go to work when something like this is happening, this is fun.  Actually, I think perhaps a documented case, or maybe has the phrase been used in a movie.  I mean, the prospective of a scientist of how it could be done, it just theory until it is actually done.  I tend to lean more towards documented events outside the scope of a newspaper or mag, but in this case, if we could find one anywhere, I think that would give the article a good base.  And if not, if somehow we could assert why the phrase is notable, perhaps document a particular wide usage, or the likes.  I'll try more when I get home today.  I'm glad your on this also.  I've left notes with some recent editors, perhaps they have some information we could use. Navou 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Navou, I apologise if my comments below made early this morning seem bitey.  The phrase "cow tipping" is very notable and has been used repeatedly in verifiable pop-culture references, movies, etc.  I do not think that an AfD would be productive, although you would be well within your editorial rights to nominate.  Whether or not cow-tipping is possible is part of the articles charm.  You might also like to check out Snipe hunt.  Best regards,  —Gaff ταλκ 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm, you can also strike them if you wish. Navou 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing and notability 

message: This article does not seem to assert any actual instances of cow tipping, only how it can be done, and some discussion of the status of the idea, myth or reality.  I believe these two need to be taken care of for this article to be good for inclusion into the encyclopedia.  Any thoughts? Navou 12:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's main worth in an encyclopedia is the popular culture references, but people always delete those. SakotGrimshine 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the cow-tpping article is deleted, which is what Navou seems to be suggesting, well...I guess I am not going to worry to much about that idea, because it is completely absurd.  Go ahead Navou, nominate it for deletion!  There is not a chance that this article will be deleted.  The article even states "urban legend."  I agree with SakotGrimghine, that the pop-culture references belong.  Also, what is up with getting all the other stuff from the article deleted then having it protected in its trimmed down format, with the current caption?  —Gaff ταλκ 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment inserted - To address the latter question about protection, I requested the protection due to the back and forth changes to the article.  It can be a tool to move disputes to the talk page.  The current version is of no consequence, see m:The Wrong Version on the meta project. Navou 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pop culture references are trivia and thus don't belong in an encyclopedia article. They add nothing to anyone's knowledge on cow tipping. The many thousands of references in pop culture can be summed in one sentence for our purposes, there have been many references to cow tipping throughout popular culture. The stuff being deleted is unreferenced and was probably original research which is against Wikipedia policy. The deletion that Navou brought up has obviously not happened and if you read the above you would likely have realized this. In fact we are trying to reference and expand this article to include more than references to cow tipping in Barnyard or whatever other popular culture mention it has recieved. Stay tuned. IvoShandor 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with "They add nothing to anyone's knowledge on cow tipping," in reference to pop-culture references.  On the contrary, they inform one's knowledge of pop-cutlure references to cow tipping.  Perhaps there is bias here, because this is a humorous topic.  It is not a new topic or an internet fad, as is much of the pop-culture fluff on Wikipedia.  I would be intrested in knowing the first 'verified reference to cow-tipping.  —Gaff ταλκ 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article OR and other things 

message: Please think and seriously consider that a picture of a cow laying down (it's in the cattle article) is the best picture.  Basically it proves cows don't have to stand up all the time and that they can get up after being tipped over. SakotGrimshine 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? Who would believe that a cow stands all the time. This is patently absurd, anyone who believes that is unlikely to have the ability to use Wikipedia. IvoShandor 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the ENTIRE premise behind cow tipping. SakotGrimshine 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire premise behind cow tipping, I believe, is that cows sleep standing up, perhaps not. A glance at any heard herd of cattle would show anyone that they lie down, I don't think there is any dispute over this fact. IvoShandor 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a suggestion, both pictures may be able to co-exist.  Navou 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  While the article is protected 

message: I propose this new fair use version with a modified caption:
thumb|left|Several cows in their natural upright state preparing their revenge on a paladin for being tipped in a previous level. Moo.
:-) —M (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  It'll unfortunately get removed by a bot for fair use in talk. SakotGrimshine 03:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Lets remember to stay calm during these discussions.  I however must agree that this image does not seem germane to the article proper. Navou 02:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * was somebody here other than calm?  i'm so calm, i'm actually bored...i think i am going to "peace-out" from discussing anything about this article.  i'm not making a "non-calm" statement about killing these cows...that is what happens to them in the game.  this photo is a non-sequitir.  —Gaff ταλκ 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a horrible idea. So bad, I am unwatching this page. Have fun, it's clear there are many editors here who don't really care about this encyclopedia. IvoShandor 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Ploughmen Fac simile of a Miniature in a very ancient Anglo Saxon Manuscript published by Shaw with legend God Spede ye Plough and send us Korne enow.png  Hmmm. SakotGrimshine 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture and caption 

message: I think this article may be more appropriately merged into the Cow article.  Navou 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; there is sufficient content and notability for a good article (note every article has to have a TOC and lots of references), and it's not sufficiently significant to the overall subject of cattle. I would argue that it's at least less notable than bullfighting, rodeo, bull-baiting and bull-leaping, and these are only given passing references in the form of links, not their own sections. Merging would be a great way to clutter a fairly nicely formed article. BigBlueFish 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disbled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: With your edit I gather you assume my rationale to be an end run around AFD or to end edit warring.  I assure you, its not.  I do think it may be appropiate to include this article as a section into Cattle as that would be more clear in my opinion.  It does not appear that consensus is to merge, so I'm not pressing the issue.  Also I strongly recommend debolding and desectioning this discussion so it does not appear like a voting process.  Regards, Navou 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Image:Cow.jpg (cow standing up) -- I think "A cow standing naturally upright." is better than "A cow in its natural upright position" purely for grammar reasons as its an active and not a passive sentence.  Also I think combining the disputed caption of that with "An unsuspecting potential victim?" or whatever is the best idea to have both.
Image:Surabhi Cow Vrindavan.jpg (cow lying down) -- It doesn't have to be this exact pic, but a cow lying down is important because, and feel free to revise this caption: The concept of cow-tipping is based on that cows sleep standing up and always have to stand up. The idea of cow-tipping is that if a cow is tipped over it cannot get back up, however this picture shows that cows can lay down and get up of their own ability.
Also if someone is against one of the stub tags, please explain it here. SakotGrimshine 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kinda doing all this on your own against consensus. / edgarde 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not been any consensus in the article. Just arguments. By the way I won't edit it for the rest of at least today. SakotGrimshine 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. See Talk:Cow_tipping#Another_try_for_consensus_on_the_caption. 12-2 is a consensus. - Merzbow 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Just a friendly reminder, consensus is not voting.  Regards, Navou 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's a useful page. Until now I always thought based on what I've heard, consensus is winning an edit war. SakotGrimshine 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moo moo farm 

message: must stop adding the childish "cow porn" - it is not of encyclopedic value, and at least one of the images (the movie poster) is not fair use. I can't leave a message on the user's talk page (it is protected), so I'm leaving it here. 64.7.166.38 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Porn? Malber's motto says, "Good things come in small packages."  What's more, I appreciate that Malber is coming up with new ways to improve the article rather than the old way. SakotGrimshine 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By adding nonsense captions and non-fair use images? You have an odd definition for "improvement". Might I remind EVERYONE that this is an encyclopedia, not uncyclopedia. Please stop with all this nonsense! 64.7.166.38 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He had some problem captions, such as "supine" whatever that word meant and the porn thing. SakotGrimshine 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it matters, but it was a reference to Supine position, the opposite of prone.  I'm a little concerned that somebody finds these images titillating enough to call 'em porn, but hey...it takes all kinds.    —Gaff ταλκ 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, prone. Should have known. I had trouble finding the antonym of supine. I do like that word and the other connotations it brings to mind. —M (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Malber]], stop adding "porn" 

message: Is a proposed law in Florida from 3 years ago really worth mentioning? Did it even pass? 65.31.143.47 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's some law against roping cows in rodeos.  Even before it was described in detail, it was the sole source the first paragraph of this article, which was most of the article. SakotGrimshine 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida thing? 

message: Please stop adding nonsense expert tags - this is a (humours) article about an urban legend, and there aren't experts in cow tipping (nor is it a historical article). Thank you very much. Whydoesthisexist 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones made the improved tag.  I added the regular one because there's been all these problems in the article because nobody can find references so we need experts. SakotGrimshine 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do understand there are no such thing as "experts" for an activity with doesn't exist/isn't possible, right? Whydoesthisexist 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: After contemplation, I removed the expert tag. There are sufficient citations to support the current claims in teh article, and the only dispute seems to be over some editors who want a more humerous image/caption. History experts can't help with that. Whydoesthisexist 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL. Like the tag was saying, Several have already been chased away by this page's amateurs, but it is remotely possible you [as an expert] might have better luck.  The chasing continues, and the latter phrase was speaking much too confidently. CyberAnth 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drop the "amateur vs. expert" crap. This is cow tipping, not nuclear physics. I went online and found a citation - it ain't that hard. perhaps Jones should work on improving the article, and not creating silly projects and tags. Whydoesthisexist 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert tag 

message: Would it be alright to move Cow tipping to Cow Tipping? I was just thinking since most articles have all their words capitalized. Thanks.--ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the manual of style says the opposite. --MichaelLinnear 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ML is correct. Only article titles that are/inlcude proper nouns are capitalized as such. Compare History of baseball in the United States with Major League Baseball. Whydoesthisexist 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you try such a move, it will get reverted quickly. When you see an article having anything but proper nouns and acronyms capitalized, you should move the article to the proper title without capitalization, and ensure that the old title contains a redirect link. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) for details. =Axlq 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Cow Tipping

message: I've just spent a lot more time than I should have going over this funny article.  Nice to see so much effort going into getting the facts :)  In a 1990 article on cow tipping in The Straight Dope, Cecil Adams first said that it really existed, quoting a friend of his who had allegedly seen it.  He was later bombarded with evidence saying the opposite; he did a little further digging and was told by "a couple of farmers and an animal science expert" that it can't happen: cows sleep lying down and only lightly doze standing, and are easily startled awake; and cows typically weigh 1200 pounds, meaning you'd surely wake the cow with the required tipping force.
I don't know if any of this information would help one way or another, but I thought I'd add it here rather than in the article so I don't prompt any more craziness.  -- Mike Blackney 08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, add it. You barely even have to change what you just wrote above, and it would add some interesting material. Grandmasterka 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Straight Dope 

message: All those who say they "debunked" cow tiping made the same mistake - they count with cows as they would be solid objects. ("Tipping a cow would be like toppling a low-built piece of concrete statuary." etc.) This is of course not true, cows are not solid. Fact that cows are able to move proves it. So in order to tip a cow, all what is needed is to evercome strength of it's muscles. And I assume that dozing cow's muscles are quite relaxed.
Cow's statue:        
******           **\ <--- push
|    |        \**   \
|    |         \   * *
******          * *   \     =Considerable force required
|    |           \     \
|    |            \
Real cow:
******        ****** <--- push
|    |        |    |
|    |        |    |
******        ******         =Much less force required
|    |        \     \
|    |         \     \
 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 
Problem with your rationale...
Real sleeping cow:
               zzzzz
   ******  zzzz     
   |    |        
   |    |      
 --******--      <---- Cows do not sleep while standing up.
the_undertow talk 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG. Find "sleeping" in my previous post. I wrote dozing. Or it can be just unprepared, or it can be in any imaginable or unimaginable state of mind in which it will be unable to react quickly enough.14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they don't doze standing up either, you can call being asleep whatever you want still won't change what it is. Also, good luck with that, you let us know how it goes. IvoShandor 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. You did say dozing. By the way, I forgot to mention that my drawing was not to scale. :P Looks like I've got something to do tonite...the_undertow talk 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone please explain to me how a bunch of ASCII art (read:original research) is relevant or appropriate here. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not, but I reverted your archival because you choose to arbitrarily archive one section in particular - which is not how archival works. If you wish to archive the talk page, it would be best to archive using a method, such as by date. I really think it would be to everyone's advantage to keep a sense of humor. We are, in fact, talking about the talk page of cow-tipping here. Things like this are bound to happen. the_undertow talk 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.164.251 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debunked? I don't think so