Recent Changes for "Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_ProposalRecent Changes of the page "Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal" on Davis Wiki.en-us Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-10-26 11:01:45PeteBPage deleted (kevin's comment is unrelated to the ban proposal/this should've been deleted ) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- This is a proposal for a '''temporary 2 month ban''' on ["Elizabeth's Pet Sitting"] where her page would be made not viewable by the general public by the admins for a 2 month period.<br> - <br> - Reason I'm offering this is because she is using the Wiki to promote her business yet is also flaunting that she is breaking pet-leash laws. There have been repeated complaints by people as recent as today. I believe it looks poor to have this person still advertising on the Wiki with these repeated issues. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - <br> - '''I'm now retracting this in favor of the statement proposed by Lori.'''<br> - <br> - Having missed the party I can say that Lori's idea seems swell ~SD<br> - <br> - [[Comments]]<br> - <br> - I am opposed. The page is written by the community, including Elizabeth. It is not an advertisement. It contains her perspective and the community's perspective. The page serves a function in letting people know about the business, warts and all, and they can judge for themselves whether or not to use her services. Elizabeth had some early bumps in her conduct on the wiki, but her current behavior has been to edit this page and other pages, and to respond to criticisms, all of which fall within the bounds of accepted wiki norms. (Also, it's not pet-leash laws that she is breaking; she is breaking a rule about the number of dogs that one person can bring to the dog park. The page states that she breaks this rule, and shows a photo). --cp<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-18 17:05:30'' [[nbsp]] I'm not sure I like this precedent. Imagine what we'd have to do with taxi services.... --["Users/DonShor"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-18 17:06:38'' [[nbsp]] Eh it was only an idea. Thx for the input guys. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-18 17:15:15'' [[nbsp]] How does everyone feel about perhaps just integrating a sentence that reiterates what is happening in the picture to the main body of text? Such as "this business has been known to violate dog park rules" or something. That way users who don't follow the wiki as much are aware but it isn't necessarily punitive. And omg the taxi pages and apartment pages would be a mess. It wasn't a bad idea, peteb, it's just tough to implement fairly amongst all businesses. Summary : a disclaimer sentence about breaking the rule would inform potential customers without totally bashing the business owner, in my opinion. --["Users/LoriOrf"]<br> - * Seems reasonable to me. --cp<br> - * That makes more sense... more information, not less. -jw<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-18 18:45:37'' [[nbsp]] I posted a statement...let me know what you think. I think it's fair --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - * I don't see any problem with the wording, but I don't think it should be down in the reviews. It should be right next to where it talks about her walking dogs. Also, not bold: simply an informative statement of how she walks them. -jw<br> - * I agree with JW's suggestion, although note that she has now deleted the statement altogether. I will refer her to this page. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 07:52:37'' [[nbsp]] I like Lori's suggestion. I also think it would be helpful to mention that many dog owners (not customers) are unhappy with this practice. --["Users/MeggoWaffle"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 08:33:36'' [[nbsp]] Opposed. PeteB is too emotionally involved and should step away from this. --["Users/JimStewart"]<br> - * Sorry, but I agree with Jim. I was a pretty harsh critic of this page a few years ago, mostly due to the zillions of pet pictures on it, but I think CP said it well above about how that was resolved, and I don't see any need for a ban... Lori's suggestion on integration seems to be perfect. -ES<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 10:37:21'' [[nbsp]] For what it's worth... I am far more concerned about Elizabeth bringing a dog (her own dog) who bit once back to the park, where it bit a second time. This to me is more serious than page shenanigans or 3 dog rule -- although having too many dogs to watch closely can mean that the early signs of a bite-to-come are not noticed. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]<br> - I agree with this. It's good that she took responsibility for the bites but bringing the dog back was poor judgment, and probably could have been avoided if she didn't have so many dogs to control. -M<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 11:50:31'' [[nbsp]] I just like to clarify a few things about each bite-there was only 2 and they happened about a week apart. Having seen both dogs after the bite occurred and having copies of invoices the only medical treatment tat was required was a vet examination and a 7 day supply of antibiotics -clavamox which is a standard veterinary practice. The second incidents two veterinarians were present at the park and said the dog didn't need to see a vet but the owner insisted . Neither bite required stitches or sedation. As for Hunter going to the park again per cautions were made and a trainer was consulted . Given his history as a friendly dog and history of being around dogs my daycare dogs hunter was given the ok. After the second incident e as nt been back since and will not e without the proper per-cautions . --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 12:16:30'' [[nbsp]] As for being too emotionally involved--not quite Jim. I am just tired of her flaunting on the Wiki that she violates the rule. I agree completely with Lori's idea but that comment I put on has been removed by Elizabeth. Since people agreed with the statement, I'm putting it back. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 14:20:24'' [[nbsp]] I don't mind the integration BUT don't think it's fair to bold a statement and also post it twice once with the pic on top of page and then bolded right before reviews . Also the picture was a personal picture of mine that I took and unloaded and who ever write the caption wasn't being fair about the situation or get the reason I posted the picture in the first place. Legally I could take the picture down thanks for all your input --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 14:24:37'' [[nbsp]] It wasn't ever on there twice that I saw Elizabeth. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 14:27:07'' [[nbsp]] Yes actually 3-4x<br> - Once caption pic - the bolded statement and all the talk in the reviews a good 3-4x --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 14:36:44'' [[nbsp]] No '''my statement''' (as agreed to in this discussion by multiple people) was only in there once. You deleted it-I reposted it-and CP moved it up and then Meg modifed it. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 16:10:02'' [[nbsp]] I think you are all missing the point and the current statement on my website that was moved up and reverted does not accurately reflect my business . If you read my posts -I was asked if I Rome rules I said yes -I have since almost been a yr come up with a solution by having several clients who frequent the park help me supervise as well as having an assistant. I don't know what see I can say and why you are all think I' have no intention f following the rules. You all said that not me. The dog bite statement is not necessary either. I feel like ths is a personal attack by wording it as it states now . --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - *The statement that you don't seem to intend to start following the rules seems pretty accurate to me (then again, I wrote it). It seems accurate because instead of saying "OK I'll stop breaking the rules" you come up with excuses (I have to run a business, I am a philanthropist, I have a degree in Animal Science) as to why it's OK that you bring more than three dogs at once. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -M<br> - <br> - I never posted that to make excuses -so yes up are wrong I was simply answering Pete's ? To me . I HAVE been following the rules . Re read my post carefully ..<br> - *I tried to read it carefully but I couldn't follow with all the typos. Doesn't sound like you've been following the rules if you're still explaining why it's ok to bring more than three dogs. Also doesn't sound like you're following the rules based on mcourv's comment. -M<br> - <br> - *''the current statement on my website'' --The Wiki page about the eponymous business you run is not "Your Website" any more than a review page on Yelp belongs to the reviewed business. Understanding this will help your long-term Wiki experience. Please reread ["Welcome to the Wiki/Business Owner"] --JT<br> - <br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 16:13:30'' [[nbsp]] We feel this way BECAUSE of the multiple (and recent) complaints so apparently your changes over a year may not be working. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 16:25:36'' [[nbsp]] The only person that has complained over the yrs is meggo waffle -who to my knowledge with that alias I have never met. I used to frequent an off easy area in s Davis and was complained to but other than that no one at Toad hollow with the exception of the recent bite has complained - --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - *Correction: I am the only person who has complained ON THE WIKI. I personally know at least two people who have complained to you at Toad Hollow, and they have told me about a few others. Also, whether or not anybody is complaining, it's still a rule and you still have to follow it like everybody else. Also - if you have clients help you supervise, do you pay them? Do your other clients know that it's not you watching their dog but a stranger? -M<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 16:40:44'' [[nbsp]] Elizabeth: You say only Meggowaffle complained but that really isn't accurate. On 3/17, ["Users/mcourv"] also complained so I am restoring the statement as was posted. Please stop changing the statement. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 17:04:26'' [[nbsp]] That last part of the statement needs to be removed -that part was never agreed upon and also I am aware mcourve complained it just happened<br> - Personal attack to include last part<br> - --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 17:12:56'' [[nbsp]] Y'all, I have said everything I need to say on the situation, multiple times, and am tired of trying to get through. Bottom line (and I'm sorry I have strayed from this by engaging in a discussion about who is entitled to break rules): whether or not allowing dogs to bite is wrong, and whether or not breaking the 3-dog rule is wrong, the incidents/business practices themselves should be documented on the Wiki. But I have sick animals to tend and papers to grade, so I'm peacing out. --["Users/MeggoWaffle"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 17:28:19'' [[nbsp]] Ah did I accidentally start something? My suggestion was to put a plain, short, factual, non-attack sentence just so pet owners are aware that their pet may be taken to the dog park in a large group. Some are okay with that, some aren't. My issue with the last part is that, as judge Judy says, we cannot speak to what is in Elizabeth's mind. Basically, it's hard to say that she doesn't intend to stop bringing multiple dogs to the park. I understand the strong feelings on both sides of the situation. How about just a simple "The proprietor of this business has been known to take more than three dogs to the park at a time." No direct naming, no speaking to the workings of her mind, but it warns people that their pets may be in a potentially tricky situation. Maybe I'm too into give peace a chance or trying to be inclusive, but I think that gets the facts across without bashing. I definitely don't support rule breaking, especially when health and safety are at risk, but I also don't want too harsh of a statement posted because of my suggestion. Thoughts? --["Users/LoriOrf"]<br> - *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' But that's not the whole story if this hypothetical poster leaves out the part about the parents of the children who play on that street who have voiced their concerns to me. Similarly, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people thinking about using her services. -M<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 17:33:47'' [[nbsp]] I'll modify it but the basic point stays. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 17:42:36'' [[nbsp]] Modified it further-please check it out. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 17:45:16'' [[nbsp]] Pete I like your version. Thanks for working on it. Now I really am signing off =) --["Users/MeggoWaffle"]<br> - = New proposal =<br> - <br> - To include the sentence, "Please be aware Elizabeth has admitted to violations of the 3-dog per person limit at the ["Toad Hollow Dog Park"] despite repeated requests to stop doing so. There are also recent complaints about dog bites."<br> - <br> - Please say whether you are in favor or not.<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 18:23:24'' [[nbsp]] I like the "New Proposal" text. GoldenA just rang in with troubling details with regard to the dog bite. Off-topic, I still can't find E.P.S. on the Pet Sitters International member search under 95616 or 95618 and it has continually bothered me that she is using their logo. To the best of my recollection, none of the other Pet Sitter pages that I've looked at/edited in the past have been as text-dense/info-short as Elizabeth's tends to be.<br> - <br> - Can Elizabeth please provide a link to the PSI logo-use policy on their site? --["Users/JudithTruman"]<br> - <br> - * Judith-I have contacts at PSI. I will call them tmrw to verify she is indeed a member. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - * PeteB--thank you. -JT.<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 18:39:25'' [[nbsp]] I used the term bashing because that's the word I used in my original comment. I don't mean to say that you are intentionally bashing someone. It's one of those moments in which something is lost in translation in typing rather than speaking face to face. I think the new proposed sentence is good and it is unlikely that one would feel attacked by it. It is factual and objective. :) --["Users/LoriOrf"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 18:44:52'' [[nbsp]] I was planning to sit this one out, but given the most recent comment on her page, I think the only reasonable solution is a text that states that she WILLFULLY ignores the rules, AND denies responsibility when she is challenged. Anything less at this time would be worse than useless to a consumer. I think that if Elizabeth is not willing to say unequivocally that she NO LONGER takes three dogs (I really don't care if she has an "assistant"; it's still her dogs, her responsibility as the business owner), and the dog that bit is NO LONGER going to the park, period, then it seems to me she is not holding herself to a professional standard, and I sure would want to know that as a dog owner. Personally I think the current statement is wishy-washy, and should be in bold... --["Users/Davidlm"]<br> - <br> - * David-I agree with making it bold (and my original statement was bolded) so if consensus agrees it will be bolded. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 20:10:00'' [[nbsp]] I am fine with the language of the new proposal. I also would probably be OK with stronger language (depending on what it was), but I'm not chomping at the bit for it. The proposed language seems like a good compromise between the different views expressed on this page. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 20:21:12'' [[nbsp]] Opposed. Again, PeteB needs to back off and let the local community settle the issue. --["Users/JimStewart"]<br> - * Wait... isn't letting the local community settle this exactly what is happening here? PeteB proposed the language, but MW, JT, DM, LO, and I have all agreed to the language (or, in DM's case, asked for something stronger). If you don't like the language, fine, but I don't see the objection to the procedure. --cp<br> - * I object to Pete spearheading this movement because he lives in Rochester, NY. I doubt he has ever been to Davis. OTOH, I know Elisabeth, have entrusted her with my dog's care many times and I think I understand the issues. I'll just leave it at that. --["Users/JimStewart"]<br> - * Objecting because you know Elizabeth and trust her is understandable. Let's leave it that that. However, I thought I was the one who called for discussion of the proposal. Really, I do live here in Davis. --cp<br> - * Jim, you seem to be the only (? --at least of the very few) registered active Wiki user who knows Elizabeth personally. The plethora of positive comments on her page are from unregistered accounts. Unregistered status makes verifying all the positive reviews very difficult, in the way that accounts which exist only to criticize or praise one business tend to be. I don't think it matters for this editing conflict that Pete isn't local. --JT<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 21:20:54'' [[nbsp]] This whole ordeal has been emotionally draining -just saying --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - * I'm sure it was very emotionally draining for the people whose dogs have been attacked by your dog, too. "Just saying." You seem to have trouble taking responsibility for your actions, and this comment really shows that. Here's what I think. That three dog rule is there for a good reason. I don't think that one person can watch more than three off-leash dogs at a time (even three is very hard), and I have seen a number of such cases go bad. As you have seen with your very own dog, atypical dog behavior can come out of nowhere and if you're occupied with the other dogs, you're helpless to react. So, you can bring a client to satisfy the letter of the dog-park rules, but that doesn't make you a responsible dog sitter. You can bring the dogs to a dog park that doesn't have that rule, but that doesn't make you a responsible dog sitter either. You may be able to get away without serious problems most of the time, but that also doesn't make you a responsible dog sitter. Eventually, it will catch up with you; in fact, it's starting to catch up with you now. --cp<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-19 22:03:08'' [[nbsp]] I have no position on the comment at this point. I will say, though, that all the vague and equivocal replies are a bit puzzling, Elizabeth. Do what you will, but speaking as a disinterested observer, it seems like some clarity on your part would resolve this whole situation and save everyone a lot of time and upset. Being vague and equivocal makes it seem like you're hiding something. Some questions that could probably use very straightforward answers:<br> - <br> - 1. Do you still take more than 3 dogs to the park?<br> - 1. If you still take more than 3 dogs to the park, do you always have enough staff/employees present to maintain a 3:1 ratio?<br> - 1. Do you still take your dog, Hunter, to dog parks?<br> - 1. If you do still take Hunter to dog parks, do you take him along with other dogs at the same time?<br> - <br> - I also want to offer some friendly advice, which you can take or leave. I'm not sure what your insurance situation is, or what your business arrangements are like, but it's generally ''not'' a good idea to allow non-employees to take responsibility for your work (i.e. have clients oversee dogs at the park when they're in your charge). The problem is only exacerbated if any of the dogs have any history of aggression (or even non-aggressive biting), if you might be in violation of park rules, if you've received complaints, etc. If you're not careful, you could be opening yourself--and conceivably your clients, too--to serious liability if something were to go wrong.<br> - <br> - Bear in mind these are all only general principles of the law offered for informational purposes only, and should not be taken as legal advice. I'm not sufficiently familiar with your situation to be able to provide any legal advice, and have not researched these issues. If any of the above seems like it might be relevant to your situation, I'd suggest you meet with a lawyer to discuss it. You'd do well to get informed about any legal risks you may be taking. --["Users/TomGarberson"]<br> - <br> - Thanks for your comment<br> - <br> - 1.) I have not broken the 3-dog rule in the past year unless people consider my helpers a violation as others have mentioned<br> - 2.) I had an assistant that recently moved out of state. Since the summer my mother who s now an employee of my company and who lives with me assists with the dogs as well as Julie. Legally I am present at the park and no responsibility is placed upon them other than being present to supervise. I am legally responsible for the dogs and have the required liability insurance through PSI and the business of the Carolina's .<br> - 3.) Hunter has NOT been back to the park since these incidents and a professional has been contacted to address the situation<br> - 4.) I exercise Hunter on leash walks and have leashed walked him with other dogs. He lives at my house and has had interaction with clients dogs in my home environment.<br> - Hope this helps clarify all current inquiries .<br> - -- ''Elizabeth Barthel'' (attributed for clarity)<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-20 10:00:07'' [[nbsp]] Just talked to PSI and asked them to send me a written statement I could post here: Casey says: "I accessed our listings and have determined that Elizabeth’s Pet Sitting is no longer a member in good standing with Pet Sitters International. At this time, their membership has lapsed and is no longer active. She is in violation of our logo infringement policy on both her business and Wiki Pages"-Casey Parker (336) 983-9222, option 1. Therefore I am removing the PSI logo and reference from Elizabeth's page at her request so the Wiki does not get in trouble --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-20 10:41:26'' [[nbsp]] I have straightened things out with PSI -not sure when you called Pete<br> - Sorry for any confusion but information is up to date<br> - My member number is 30103<br> - And here's the link to access it<br> - http://m.petsit.com/mobile/locate_results.php<br> - <br> - Pls restore logo<br> - Thanks --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-20 11:09:39'' [[nbsp]] Direct link: http://m.petsit.com/mobile/locate_details.php/id/332387 --["Users/JabberWokky"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-03-20 11:24:01'' [[nbsp]] I didn't know how long it'd take their site to catch up so I just called Casey back after my shower and she updated me. Img has been restored and I'm going to update the link momentarily. --["Users/PeteB"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2013-10-25 10:56:38'' [[nbsp]] Elizabeth's Pet sitting is horrible. I was at the Toad Hollow Dog Park today.. As everyone has mentioned, she broke the 3 dog per person law. She brought 5-7 dogs.. The dogs continuously barked and chased my dog. Some of them even bit her. Clearly, my dog did not want to play with them. It's horrifying for one dog to be chased by a pack of dogs, for a good 15 minutes. I tried to separate them but my dog kept running away because they're barking, and biting her. She was too busy talking to this other guy at the park, and I had to ask her to control her dogs. Obviously she had more than 5 at once, she can't control them. Even after I asked, they still chased my dog over and over again. It was clear my dog did not want to play.. Very irresponsible, I don't know how she fits all those dogs in her little red car. At least be more considerate of others in the park, my dog got a good 15 minute chase and got a couple bites. Everyone in the park looked at us, hoping someone stop the dogs. I heard that she broke the lease law MULTIPLE times, and her dogs bit other dogs at the same park more than once. I don't know why she doesn't look after her dogs instead of talking to her boyfriend.. --["Users/KevinQ"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ deleted</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-10-25 10:56:38KevinQComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 140: </td> <td> Line 140: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-10-25 10:56:38'' [[nbsp]] Elizabeth's Pet sitting is horrible. I was at the Toad Hollow Dog Park today.. As everyone has mentioned, she broke the 3 dog per person law. She brought 5-7 dogs.. The dogs continuously barked and chased my dog. Some of them even bit her. Clearly, my dog did not want to play with them. It's horrifying for one dog to be chased by a pack of dogs, for a good 15 minutes. I tried to separate them but my dog kept running away because they're barking, and biting her. She was too busy talking to this other guy at the park, and I had to ask her to control her dogs. Obviously she had more than 5 at once, she can't control them. Even after I asked, they still chased my dog over and over again. It was clear my dog did not want to play.. Very irresponsible, I don't know how she fits all those dogs in her little red car. At least be more considerate of others in the park, my dog got a good 15 minute chase and got a couple bites. Everyone in the park looked at us, hoping someone stop the dogs. I heard that she broke the lease law MULTIPLE times, and her dogs bit other dogs at the same park more than once. I don't know why she doesn't look after her dogs instead of talking to her boyfriend.. --["Users/KevinQ"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-20 11:24:01PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 138: </td> <td> Line 138: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-20 11:24:01'' [[nbsp]] I didn't know how long it'd take their site to catch up so I just called Casey back after my shower and she updated me. Img has been restored and I'm going to update the link momentarily. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-20 11:09:39JabberWokkyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 136: </td> <td> Line 136: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-20 11:09:39'' [[nbsp]] Direct link: http://m.petsit.com/mobile/locate_details.php/id/332387 --["Users/JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-20 10:41:26ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 127: </td> <td> Line 127: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-20 10:41:26'' [[nbsp]] I have straightened things out with PSI -not sure when you called Pete<br> + Sorry for any confusion but information is up to date<br> + My member number is 30103<br> + And here's the link to access it<br> + http://m.petsit.com/mobile/locate_results.php<br> + <br> + Pls restore logo<br> + Thanks --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-20 10:02:18PeteBclarification <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 126: </td> <td> Line 126: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2013-03-20 10:00:07'' [[nbsp]] Just talked to PSI and asked them to send me a written statement I could post here: Casey says: "I accessed our listings and have determined that Elizabeth’s Pet Sitting is no longer a member in good standing with Pet Sitters International. At this time, their membership has lapsed and is no longer active. She is in violation of our logo infringement policy on both her business and Wiki Pages"-Casey Parker (336) 983-9222, option 1. Therefore I am removing the PSI logo and reference from Elizabeth's page at her request --["Users/PeteB"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2013-03-20 10:00:07'' [[nbsp]] Just talked to PSI and asked them to send me a written statement I could post here: Casey says: "I accessed our listings and have determined that Elizabeth’s Pet Sitting is no longer a member in good standing with Pet Sitters International. At this time, their membership has lapsed and is no longer active. She is in violation of our logo infringement policy on both her business and Wiki Pages"-Casey Parker (336) 983-9222, option 1. Therefore I am removing the PSI logo and reference from Elizabeth's page at her request <span>so the Wiki does not get in trouble </span>--["Users/PeteB"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-20 10:00:07PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 125: </td> <td> Line 125: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-20 10:00:07'' [[nbsp]] Just talked to PSI and asked them to send me a written statement I could post here: Casey says: "I accessed our listings and have determined that Elizabeth’s Pet Sitting is no longer a member in good standing with Pet Sitters International. At this time, their membership has lapsed and is no longer active. She is in violation of our logo infringement policy on both her business and Wiki Pages"-Casey Parker (336) 983-9222, option 1. Therefore I am removing the PSI logo and reference from Elizabeth's page at her request --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-20 01:40:49JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 124: </td> <td> Line 124: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ -- ''Elizabeth Barthel'' (attributed for clarity)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 22:39:16CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 104: </td> <td> Line 104: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I'm sure it was very emotionally draining for the people whose dogs have been attacked by your dog, too. "Just saying." You seem to have trouble taking responsibility for your actions, and this comment really shows that. Here's what I think. That three dog rule is there for a good reason. I don't think that one person can watch more than three off-leash dogs at a time (even three is very hard), and I have seen a number of such cases go bad. As you have seen with your very own dog, atypical dog behavior can come out of nowhere and if you're occupied with the other dogs, you're helpless to react. So, you can bring a client to satisfy the letter of the dog-park rules, but that doesn't make you a responsible dog sitter. You can bring the dogs to a dog park that doesn't have that rule, but that doesn't make you a responsible dog sitter either. You may be able to get away without serious problems most of the time, but that also doesn't make you a responsible dog sitter. Eventually, it will catch up with you; in fact, it's starting to catch up with you now. --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 22:21:15ElizabethBarthel <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + Thanks for your comment<br> + <br> + 1.) I have not broken the 3-dog rule in the past year unless people consider my helpers a violation as others have mentioned<br> + 2.) I had an assistant that recently moved out of state. Since the summer my mother who s now an employee of my company and who lives with me assists with the dogs as well as Julie. Legally I am present at the park and no responsibility is placed upon them other than being present to supervise. I am legally responsible for the dogs and have the required liability insurance through PSI and the business of the Carolina's .<br> + 3.) Hunter has NOT been back to the park since these incidents and a professional has been contacted to address the situation<br> + 4.) I exercise Hunter on leash walks and have leashed walked him with other dogs. He lives at my house and has had interaction with clients dogs in my home environment.<br> + Hope this helps clarify all current inquiries .</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 22:06:33TomGarbersonclarification <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I also want to offer some friendly advice, which you can take or leave. I'm not sure what your insurance situation is, or what your business arrangements are like, but it's generally ''not'' a good idea to allow non-employees to take responsibility for your work (i.e. have clients oversee dogs at the park when they're in your charge). The problem is only exacerbated if any of the dogs have any history of aggression, if you might be in violation of park rules, if you've received complaints, etc. If you're not careful, you could be opening yourself--and conceivably your clients, too--to serious liability if something were to go wrong. </td> <td> <span>+</span> I also want to offer some friendly advice, which you can take or leave. I'm not sure what your insurance situation is, or what your business arrangements are like, but it's generally ''not'' a good idea to allow non-employees to take responsibility for your work (i.e. have clients oversee dogs at the park when they're in your charge). The problem is only exacerbated if any of the dogs have any history of aggression<span>&nbsp;(or even non-aggressive biting)</span>, if you might be in violation of park rules, if you've received complaints, etc. If you're not careful, you could be opening yourself--and conceivably your clients, too--to serious liability if something were to go wrong. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 22:03:08TomGarbersonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 104: </td> <td> Line 104: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 22:03:08'' [[nbsp]] I have no position on the comment at this point. I will say, though, that all the vague and equivocal replies are a bit puzzling, Elizabeth. Do what you will, but speaking as a disinterested observer, it seems like some clarity on your part would resolve this whole situation and save everyone a lot of time and upset. Being vague and equivocal makes it seem like you're hiding something. Some questions that could probably use very straightforward answers:<br> + <br> + 1. Do you still take more than 3 dogs to the park?<br> + 1. If you still take more than 3 dogs to the park, do you always have enough staff/employees present to maintain a 3:1 ratio?<br> + 1. Do you still take your dog, Hunter, to dog parks?<br> + 1. If you do still take Hunter to dog parks, do you take him along with other dogs at the same time?<br> + <br> + I also want to offer some friendly advice, which you can take or leave. I'm not sure what your insurance situation is, or what your business arrangements are like, but it's generally ''not'' a good idea to allow non-employees to take responsibility for your work (i.e. have clients oversee dogs at the park when they're in your charge). The problem is only exacerbated if any of the dogs have any history of aggression, if you might be in violation of park rules, if you've received complaints, etc. If you're not careful, you could be opening yourself--and conceivably your clients, too--to serious liability if something were to go wrong.<br> + <br> + Bear in mind these are all only general principles of the law offered for informational purposes only, and should not be taken as legal advice. I'm not sufficiently familiar with your situation to be able to provide any legal advice, and have not researched these issues. If any of the above seems like it might be relevant to your situation, I'd suggest you meet with a lawyer to discuss it. You'd do well to get informed about any legal risks you may be taking. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 21:39:39JudithTrumanclarification "my website" vs "wiki page" <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + *''the current statement on my website'' --The Wiki page about the eponymous business you run is not "Your Website" any more than a review page on Yelp belongs to the reviewed business. Understanding this will help your long-term Wiki experience. Please reread ["Welcome to the Wiki/Business Owner"] --JT<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 21:20:54ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 99: </td> <td> Line 99: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 21:20:54'' [[nbsp]] This whole ordeal has been emotionally draining -just saying --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 21:17:37JudithTruman <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 84: </td> <td> Line 84: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * PeteB--thank you. -JT.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 97: </td> <td> Line 98: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Jim, you seem to be the only (? --at least of the very few) registered active Wiki user who knows Elizabeth personally. The plethora of positive comments on her page are from unregistered accounts. Unregistered status makes verifying all the positive reviews very difficult, in the way that accounts which exist only to criticize or praise one business tend to be. I don't think it matters for this editing conflict that Pete isn't local. --JT</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 20:37:09CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 96: </td> <td> Line 96: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Objecting because you know Elizabeth and trust her is understandable. Let's leave it that that. However, I thought I was the one who called for discussion of the proposal. Really, I do live here in Davis. --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 20:33:01JimStewart <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 95: </td> <td> Line 95: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I object to Pete spearheading this movement because he lives in Rochester, NY. I doubt he has ever been to Davis. OTOH, I know Elisabeth, have entrusted her with my dog's care many times and I think I understand the issues. I'll just leave it at that. --["Users/JimStewart"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 20:26:15CovertProfessorquery for JS <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 94: </td> <td> Line 94: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Wait... isn't letting the local community settle this exactly what is happening here? PeteB proposed the language, but MW, JT, DM, LO, and I have all agreed to the language (or, in DM's case, asked for something stronger). If you don't like the language, fine, but I don't see the objection to the procedure. --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 20:21:12JimStewartComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 92: </td> <td> Line 92: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 20:21:12'' [[nbsp]] Opposed. Again, PeteB needs to back off and let the local community settle the issue. --["Users/JimStewart"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 20:10:00CovertProfessorComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 90: </td> <td> Line 90: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 20:10:00'' [[nbsp]] I am fine with the language of the new proposal. I also would probably be OK with stronger language (depending on what it was), but I'm not chomping at the bit for it. The proposed language seems like a good compromise between the different views expressed on this page. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 18:58:12PeteB <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 88: </td> <td> Line 88: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * David-I agree with making it bold (and my original statement was bolded) so if consensus agrees it will be bolded. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 18:46:10Davidlm <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 87: </td> <td> Line 87: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2013-03-19 18:44:52'' [[nbsp]] I was planning to sit this one out, but given the most recent comment on her page, I think the only reasonable solution is a text that states that she WILLFULLY ignores the rules, AND denies responsibility when she is challenged. Anything less at this time would be worse than useless to a consumer. I think that if Elizabeth is not willing to say unequivocally that she NO LONGER takes three dogs (I really don't care if she has an "assistant"; it's still her dogs, her responsibility as the business owner), and the dog that bit is NO LONGER going to the park, period, then it seems to me she is not holding herself to a professional standard, and I sure would want to know that as a dog owner... --["Users/Davidlm"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2013-03-19 18:44:52'' [[nbsp]] I was planning to sit this one out, but given the most recent comment on her page, I think the only reasonable solution is a text that states that she WILLFULLY ignores the rules, AND denies responsibility when she is challenged. Anything less at this time would be worse than useless to a consumer. I think that if Elizabeth is not willing to say unequivocally that she NO LONGER takes three dogs (I really don't care if she has an "assistant"; it's still her dogs, her responsibility as the business owner), and the dog that bit is NO LONGER going to the park, period, then it seems to me she is not holding herself to a professional standard, and I sure would want to know that as a dog owner.<span>&nbsp;Personally I think the current statement is wishy-washy, and should be in bold.</span>.. --["Users/Davidlm"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 18:44:52DavidlmComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 86: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 18:44:52'' [[nbsp]] I was planning to sit this one out, but given the most recent comment on her page, I think the only reasonable solution is a text that states that she WILLFULLY ignores the rules, AND denies responsibility when she is challenged. Anything less at this time would be worse than useless to a consumer. I think that if Elizabeth is not willing to say unequivocally that she NO LONGER takes three dogs (I really don't care if she has an "assistant"; it's still her dogs, her responsibility as the business owner), and the dog that bit is NO LONGER going to the park, period, then it seems to me she is not holding herself to a professional standard, and I sure would want to know that as a dog owner... --["Users/Davidlm"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 18:42:45PeteBreply to judith <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 82: </td> <td> Line 82: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * Judith-I have contacts at PSI. I will call them tmrw to verify she is indeed a member. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 18:39:25LoriOrfComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 82: </td> <td> Line 82: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 18:39:25'' [[nbsp]] I used the term bashing because that's the word I used in my original comment. I don't mean to say that you are intentionally bashing someone. It's one of those moments in which something is lost in translation in typing rather than speaking face to face. I think the new proposed sentence is good and it is unlikely that one would feel attacked by it. It is factual and objective. :) --["Users/LoriOrf"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 18:23:24JudithTrumanComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 78: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 18:23:24'' [[nbsp]] I like the "New Proposal" text. GoldenA just rang in with troubling details with regard to the dog bite. Off-topic, I still can't find E.P.S. on the Pet Sitters International member search under 95616 or 95618 and it has continually bothered me that she is using their logo. To the best of my recollection, none of the other Pet Sitter pages that I've looked at/edited in the past have been as text-dense/info-short as Elizabeth's tends to be.<br> + <br> + Can Elizabeth please provide a link to the PSI logo-use policy on their site? --["Users/JudithTruman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 18:04:44CovertProfessorplease weigh in on the new proposal at the bottom of the page <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 73: </td> <td> Line 73: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ = New proposal =<br> + <br> + To include the sentence, "Please be aware Elizabeth has admitted to violations of the 3-dog per person limit at the ["Toad Hollow Dog Park"] despite repeated requests to stop doing so. There are also recent complaints about dog bites."<br> + <br> + Please say whether you are in favor or not.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:45:16MeggoWaffleComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 71: </td> <td> Line 71: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 17:45:16'' [[nbsp]] Pete I like your version. Thanks for working on it. Now I really am signing off =) --["Users/MeggoWaffle"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:43:25MeggoWaffle(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' <span>I</span>t's not the whole story if this hypothetical poster leaves out the part about the parents of the children who play on that street who have voiced their concerns. Similarly, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people thinking about using her services. -M </td> <td> <span>+</span> *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' <span>But tha</span>t's not the whole story if this hypothetical poster leaves out the part about the parents of the children who play on that street who have voiced their concerns<span>&nbsp;to me</span>. Similarly, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people thinking about using her services. -M </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:42:36PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 69: </td> <td> Line 69: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 17:42:36'' [[nbsp]] Modified it further-please check it out. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:42:23MeggoWaffle(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' It's not the whole story if th<span>ey</span> leave out the part about the parents of the children who play on that street who have voiced their concerns. Similarly, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people <span>considering</span> using her services. -M </td> <td> <span>+</span> *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' It's not the whole story if th<span>is hypothetical poster</span> leave<span>s</span> out the part about the parents of the children who play on that street who have voiced their concerns. Similarly, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people <span>thinking about</span> using her services. -M </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:41:40MeggoWaffle(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' <span>But the </span>f<span>act is</span>, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people considering using her services. -M </td> <td> <span>+</span> *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' <span>It's not the whole story i</span>f<span>&nbsp;they leave out the part about the parents of the children who play on that street who have voiced their concerns. Similarly</span>, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people considering using her services. -M </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:40:32MeggoWaffle <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *I regret that the sentence is read as 'bashing.' I personally think that your version, while a good start, doesn't quite reflect the situation. If someone wrote on my page "Megan is known to drive 30mph in a 25mph zone," everybody would be like 'so what, nobody cares about that law.' But the fact is, Elizabeth has been asked to stop breaking the rule by multiple people. The information about her lack of consideration might be important to people considering using her services. -M</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:33:47PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 17:33:47'' [[nbsp]] I'll modify it but the basic point stays. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:28:19LoriOrfComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 17:28:19'' [[nbsp]] Ah did I accidentally start something? My suggestion was to put a plain, short, factual, non-attack sentence just so pet owners are aware that their pet may be taken to the dog park in a large group. Some are okay with that, some aren't. My issue with the last part is that, as judge Judy says, we cannot speak to what is in Elizabeth's mind. Basically, it's hard to say that she doesn't intend to stop bringing multiple dogs to the park. I understand the strong feelings on both sides of the situation. How about just a simple "The proprietor of this business has been known to take more than three dogs to the park at a time." No direct naming, no speaking to the workings of her mind, but it warns people that their pets may be in a potentially tricky situation. Maybe I'm too into give peace a chance or trying to be inclusive, but I think that gets the facts across without bashing. I definitely don't support rule breaking, especially when health and safety are at risk, but I also don't want too harsh of a statement posted because of my suggestion. Thoughts? --["Users/LoriOrf"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:15:55MeggoWaffle(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 50: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *I tried to read it carefully but I couldn't follow with all the typos. Doesn't sound like you've been following the rules if you're still explaining why it's ok to bring more than three dogs. Also doesn't sound like you're following the rules based on mcourv's comment. -M</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:12:56MeggoWaffleComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 61: </td> <td> Line 61: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 17:12:56'' [[nbsp]] Y'all, I have said everything I need to say on the situation, multiple times, and am tired of trying to get through. Bottom line (and I'm sorry I have strayed from this by engaging in a discussion about who is entitled to break rules): whether or not allowing dogs to bite is wrong, and whether or not breaking the 3-dog rule is wrong, the incidents/business practices themselves should be documented on the Wiki. But I have sick animals to tend and papers to grade, so I'm peacing out. --["Users/MeggoWaffle"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:07:44ElizabethBarthel <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 48: </td> <td> Line 48: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + I never posted that to make excuses -so yes up are wrong I was simply answering Pete's ? To me . I HAVE been following the rules . Re read my post carefully ..</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 17:04:26ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 55: </td> <td> Line 55: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 17:04:26'' [[nbsp]] That last part of the statement needs to be removed -that part was never agreed upon and also I am aware mcourve complained it just happened<br> + Personal attack to include last part<br> + --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 16:53:16MeggoWaffle(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 47: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *The statement that you don't seem to intend to start following the rules seems pretty accurate to me (then again, I wrote it). It seems accurate because instead of saying "OK I'll stop breaking the rules" you come up with excuses (I have to run a business, I am a philanthropist, I have a degree in Animal Science) as to why it's OK that you bring more than three dogs at once. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -M</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 16:46:01MeggoWaffle <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: -----</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 16:41:47MeggoWaffle(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: -----<br> + *Correction: I am the only person who has complained ON THE WIKI. I personally know at least two people who have complained to you at Toad Hollow, and they have told me about a few others. Also, whether or not anybody is complaining, it's still a rule and you still have to follow it like everybody else. Also - if you have clients help you supervise, do you pay them? Do your other clients know that it's not you watching their dog but a stranger? -M</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 16:40:44PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 16:40:44'' [[nbsp]] Elizabeth: You say only Meggowaffle complained but that really isn't accurate. On 3/17, ["Users/mcourv"] also complained so I am restoring the statement as was posted. Please stop changing the statement. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 16:25:36ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 49: </td> <td> Line 49: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 16:25:36'' [[nbsp]] The only person that has complained over the yrs is meggo waffle -who to my knowledge with that alias I have never met. I used to frequent an off easy area in s Davis and was complained to but other than that no one at Toad hollow with the exception of the recent bite has complained - --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 16:13:30PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 47: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 16:13:30'' [[nbsp]] We feel this way BECAUSE of the multiple (and recent) complaints so apparently your changes over a year may not be working. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 16:10:02ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 45: </td> <td> Line 45: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 16:10:02'' [[nbsp]] I think you are all missing the point and the current statement on my website that was moved up and reverted does not accurately reflect my business . If you read my posts -I was asked if I Rome rules I said yes -I have since almost been a yr come up with a solution by having several clients who frequent the park help me supervise as well as having an assistant. I don't know what see I can say and why you are all think I' have no intention f following the rules. You all said that not me. The dog bite statement is not necessary either. I feel like ths is a personal attack by wording it as it states now . --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 14:47:09PeteB <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2013-03-19 14:36:44'' [[nbsp]] No my statement was only in there once. You deleted it-I reposted it-and CP moved it up and then Meg modifed it. --["Users/PeteB"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2013-03-19 14:36:44'' [[nbsp]] No <span>'''</span>my statement<span>''' (as agreed to in this discussion by multiple people)</span> was only in there once. You deleted it-I reposted it-and CP moved it up and then Meg modifed it. --["Users/PeteB"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 14:36:44PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 43: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 14:36:44'' [[nbsp]] No my statement was only in there once. You deleted it-I reposted it-and CP moved it up and then Meg modifed it. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 14:27:07ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 40: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 14:27:07'' [[nbsp]] Yes actually 3-4x<br> + Once caption pic - the bolded statement and all the talk in the reviews a good 3-4x --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 14:24:37PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 14:24:37'' [[nbsp]] It wasn't ever on there twice that I saw Elizabeth. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 14:20:24ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 36: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 14:20:24'' [[nbsp]] I don't mind the integration BUT don't think it's fair to bold a statement and also post it twice once with the pic on top of page and then bolded right before reviews . Also the picture was a personal picture of mine that I took and unloaded and who ever write the caption wasn't being fair about the situation or get the reason I posted the picture in the first place. Legally I could take the picture down thanks for all your input --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 13:22:26StevenDaubert(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Having missed the party I can say that Loris <span>I</span>dea seems swell ~SD </td> <td> <span>+</span> Having missed the party I can say that Lori<span>'</span>s <span>i</span>dea seems swell ~SD </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 13:22:10StevenDaubert(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + Having missed the party I can say that Loris Idea seems swell ~SD</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 12:16:54PeteB <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + '''I'm now retracting this in favor of the statement proposed by Lori.'''</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 12:16:30PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 30: </td> <td> Line 30: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 12:16:30'' [[nbsp]] As for being too emotionally involved--not quite Jim. I am just tired of her flaunting on the Wiki that she violates the rule. I agree completely with Lori's idea but that comment I put on has been removed by Elizabeth. Since people agreed with the statement, I'm putting it back. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 11:55:07MeggoWaffle(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 27: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ I agree with this. It's good that she took responsibility for the bites but bringing the dog back was poor judgment, and probably could have been avoided if she didn't have so many dogs to control. -M</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 11:50:31ElizabethBarthelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 27: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 11:50:31'' [[nbsp]] I just like to clarify a few things about each bite-there was only 2 and they happened about a week apart. Having seen both dogs after the bite occurred and having copies of invoices the only medical treatment tat was required was a vet examination and a 7 day supply of antibiotics -clavamox which is a standard veterinary practice. The second incidents two veterinarians were present at the park and said the dog didn't need to see a vet but the owner insisted . Neither bite required stitches or sedation. As for Hunter going to the park again per cautions were made and a trainer was consulted . Given his history as a friendly dog and history of being around dogs my daycare dogs hunter was given the ok. After the second incident e as nt been back since and will not e without the proper per-cautions . --["Users/ElizabethBarthel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 10:45:40CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 26: </td> <td> Line 26: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2013-03-19 10:37:21'' [[nbsp]] For what its worth... I am far more concerned about Elizabeth bringing a dog (her own dog) who bit once back to the park, where it bit a second time. This to me is more serious than page shenanigans or 3 dog rule -- although having too many dogs to watch closely can mean that the early signs of a bite-to-come are not noticed. --["Users/CovertProfessor"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2013-03-19 10:37:21'' [[nbsp]] For what it<span>'</span>s worth... I am far more concerned about Elizabeth bringing a dog (her own dog) who bit once back to the park, where it bit a second time. This to me is more serious than page shenanigans or 3 dog rule -- although having too many dogs to watch closely can mean that the early signs of a bite-to-come are not noticed. --["Users/CovertProfessor"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 10:37:21CovertProfessorComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 25: </td> <td> Line 25: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 10:37:21'' [[nbsp]] For what its worth... I am far more concerned about Elizabeth bringing a dog (her own dog) who bit once back to the park, where it bit a second time. This to me is more serious than page shenanigans or 3 dog rule -- although having too many dogs to watch closely can mean that the early signs of a bite-to-come are not noticed. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 10:06:26EdWins <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 24: </td> <td> Line 24: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Sorry, but I agree with Jim. I was a pretty harsh critic of this page a few years ago, mostly due to the zillions of pet pictures on it, but I think CP said it well above about how that was resolved, and I don't see any need for a ban... Lori's suggestion on integration seems to be perfect. -ES</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 08:33:36JimStewartComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 22: </td> <td> Line 22: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 08:33:36'' [[nbsp]] Opposed. PeteB is too emotionally involved and should step away from this. --["Users/JimStewart"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 08:25:46CovertProfessoragree with JW, but... <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I agree with JW's suggestion, although note that she has now deleted the statement altogether. I will refer her to this page. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 07:52:37MeggoWaffleComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-19 07:52:37'' [[nbsp]] I like Lori's suggestion. I also think it would be helpful to mention that many dog owners (not customers) are unhappy with this practice. --["Users/MeggoWaffle"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-19 06:04:16JabberWokkySupport reply and then a comment on possibly moving it. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 15: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * That makes more sense... more information, not less. -jw</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 17: </td> <td> Line 18: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I don't see any problem with the wording, but I don't think it should be down in the reviews. It should be right next to where it talks about her walking dogs. Also, not bold: simply an informative statement of how she walks them. -jw</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 18:45:37PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 15: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-18 18:45:37'' [[nbsp]] I posted a statement...let me know what you think. I think it's fair --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 18:39:01CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- *</span> I am opposed. The page is written by the community, including Elizabeth. It is not an advertisement. It contains her perspective and the community's perspective. The page serves a function in letting people know about the business, warts and all, and they can judge for themselves whether or not to use her services. Elizabeth had some early bumps in her conduct on the wiki, but her current behavior has been to edit this page and other pages, and to respond to criticisms, all of which fall within the bounds of accepted wiki norms. (Also, it's not pet-leash laws that she is breaking; she is breaking a rule about the number of dogs that one person can bring to the dog park. The page states that she breaks this rule, and shows a photo). --cp </td> <td> <span>+</span> I am opposed. The page is written by the community, including Elizabeth. It is not an advertisement. It contains her perspective and the community's perspective. The page serves a function in letting people know about the business, warts and all, and they can judge for themselves whether or not to use her services. Elizabeth had some early bumps in her conduct on the wiki, but her current behavior has been to edit this page and other pages, and to respond to criticisms, all of which fall within the bounds of accepted wiki norms. (Also, it's not pet-leash laws that she is breaking; she is breaking a rule about the number of dogs that one person can bring to the dog park. The page states that she breaks this rule, and shows a photo). --cp </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 18:38:47CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Seems reasonable to me. --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 17:16:51LoriOrfEw. That wasn't an interrogative sentence. Was having convo while typing ;) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 13: </td> <td> Line 13: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2013-03-18 17:15:15'' [[nbsp]] <span>P</span>erhaps just integrating a sentence that reiterates what is happening in the picture to the main body of text? Such as "this business has been known to violate dog park rules" or something. That way users who don't follow the wiki as much are aware but it isn't necessarily punitive. And omg the taxi pages and apartment pages would be a mess. It wasn't a bad idea, peteb, it's just tough to implement fairly amongst all businesses. Summary : a disclaimer sentence about breaking the rule would inform potential customers without totally bashing the business owner, in my opinion. --["Users/LoriOrf"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2013-03-18 17:15:15'' [[nbsp]] <span>How does everyone feel about p</span>erhaps just integrating a sentence that reiterates what is happening in the picture to the main body of text? Such as "this business has been known to violate dog park rules" or something. That way users who don't follow the wiki as much are aware but it isn't necessarily punitive. And omg the taxi pages and apartment pages would be a mess. It wasn't a bad idea, peteb, it's just tough to implement fairly amongst all businesses. Summary : a disclaimer sentence about breaking the rule would inform potential customers without totally bashing the business owner, in my opinion. --["Users/LoriOrf"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 17:15:15LoriOrfComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 12: </td> <td> Line 12: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-18 17:15:15'' [[nbsp]] Perhaps just integrating a sentence that reiterates what is happening in the picture to the main body of text? Such as "this business has been known to violate dog park rules" or something. That way users who don't follow the wiki as much are aware but it isn't necessarily punitive. And omg the taxi pages and apartment pages would be a mess. It wasn't a bad idea, peteb, it's just tough to implement fairly amongst all businesses. Summary : a disclaimer sentence about breaking the rule would inform potential customers without totally bashing the business owner, in my opinion. --["Users/LoriOrf"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 17:06:38PeteBComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-18 17:06:38'' [[nbsp]] Eh it was only an idea. Thx for the input guys. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 17:05:30DonShorComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-03-18 17:05:30'' [[nbsp]] I'm not sure I like this precedent. Imagine what we'd have to do with taxi services.... --["Users/DonShor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 16:44:46CovertProfessorto help encourage participation <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + [[Comments]]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 16:35:53CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I am opposed. The page is written by the community, including Elizabeth. It is not an advertisement. It contains her perspective and the community's perspective. The page serves a function in letting people know about the business, warts and all, and they can judge for themselves whether or not to use her services. Elizabeth had some early bumps in her conduct on the wiki, but her current behavior has been to edit this page and other pages, and to respond to criticisms, all of which fall within the bounds of accepted wiki norms. (Also, it's not pet-leash laws that she is breaking; she is breaking a rule about the number of dogs that one person can bring to the dog park. The page states that she breaks this rule, and shows a photo). --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposalhttp://daviswiki.org/Elizabeth%27s_Pet_Sitting/Ban_Proposal2013-03-18 16:22:24PeteBproposal <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Elizabeth's Pet Sitting/Ban Proposal<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ This is a proposal for a '''temporary 2 month ban''' on ["Elizabeth's Pet Sitting"] where her page would be made not viewable by the general public by the admins for a 2 month period.<br> + <br> + Reason I'm offering this is because she is using the Wiki to promote her business yet is also flaunting that she is breaking pet-leash laws. There have been repeated complaints by people as recent as today. I believe it looks poor to have this person still advertising on the Wiki with these repeated issues. --["Users/PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>