Talk:Hunt monitor

Acceptance

I have been a stern critic of this as a draft, and applaud the main contributing editor's efforts to bring it into line with our policies. I see the main namespace as the best place for further development, and so I have accepted it. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. Zinfandelorganic (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 17:45 22 September 2015

I have noted that an article on this topic was created in main namespace and subsequently deleted as part of the scandal of rogue editors requesting money to allegedly improve non viable articles. The main contributing editor was a victim of this scam. Fiddle Faddle 15:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This comment during the draft process reflects that sorry chapter of events: "

• Comment: Note to reviewers: - although this article appears on the list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles, the present draft existed before OM "adopted" it and asked its author for money, and should therefore be considered on its own merits. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)" I have brought this forward form the article history to place on this talk page, complete with signature and date and time stamp. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Unclear references

There are, currently, two competing reference numbering schemes running. Some of these seem to be external links. Please see See Wikipedia:External links to see what is and is not allowed. Once this is handles the banner I just placed on the article may be removed. Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope I have clarified the reference numbering. It seems ok to me now but if it is still wrong I will need some extra help please. Also I have deleted two external links that were linked to YouTube films, which although directly relate to hunt monitors and hunt prosecutions, I was not sure if they came within the rules of using external links. Thank you Tim for your patience. Zinfandelorganic (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)