User talk:Repeat2341: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:21, 3 July 2007

Spam

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the Feedlot (diff), Factory farming (diff diff), Vegetarianism (diff diff), and veganism (diff diff) articles do not comply with our guidelines for external links, and furthermore have misleading edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Slashme 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boo. You won't let me add any kind of alternative or opposing viewpoint to these articles. This encyclopedia is a primary source of information for many people, and dietary choices are major lifestyle decisions that should be made with balanced information. Please quit deleting my attempts to balance these articles. Repeat2341 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insert your personal opinion into articles. It's a form of disruption, and your accounts may blocked if you continue to insert it. Try discussing the issue on the talk page instead. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really is total bull. You won't give me any way to balance these articles. What in the heck am I supposed to do, if you won't let me add philosophical content or links to counterarguments? Repeat2341 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep inserting the same pointless paragraph in numerous articles. There may be a place for your comments but it isn't in the definition of the topic being discussed. Look for a controversy section, or a section for alternative views - then post what you want to put up if you can document it. Thanks. Bob98133 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't pointless at all. The information - the point of view - I am trying to provide would have helped me enormously; I would still have many friendships I have lost, still have my mental and physical health. I think it's very important. And documenting it is impossible; there is no research available. I am doing wikipedia a favor and being treated like a child for my trouble. This is a primary resource, and many other articles (for instance, the Animal Rights article) explicitly discuss counterarguments in their headers. You editors are being short-sighted and unreasonable, sticking to the letter of your limited authority instead of considering my point.

If I try to add an opposing viewpoint section to any of these articles, you'll just delete that too. This is the problem with the internet. A primary resource being edited by sticklers who can't contribute or edit, and just delete anything that isn't arbitrarily academic enough. But all the academics on this topic are shallow, ivory-tower vegans. I have put this whole matter up for mediation; if I lose, wikipedia will be responsible for failing to adequately inform people on a very serious, life-altering subject, a subject at least as serious as drugs. You're being, in a word, vain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hi further to your input on the Animal Rights project talk page, it might perhaps help you if you read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. And specifically these points -

Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. A quick way to do this is to use the + tab next to the edit button on the talk page you are on.

Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes (~~~~), and they will be replaced with your username and time stamp, like this: Eloquence 03:44 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC). Please note that it is impossible to leave an anonymous comment because your user name or IP address is recorded in the page history.

Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out.

Thanks. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Veganism.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Request for third opinion

Hi Repeat2341, I found your request for a third opinion, and I hope to offer useful insights into the dispute resolution process.

Third opinions are intended for disputes involving only two editors. The histories of Veganism and Talk:Veganism show at least four editors in this dispute: you, Rockpocket, SlimVirgin, and Kellen`. Requests for comment are a better way to get help with disputes involving muliple editors.

When you do have a dispute involving one other person, please request a third opinion again. When you do, it would help if you follow the guidelines carefully to format the request. Requests should provide a short, neutral description of the disagreement; a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page; and no discussion. Unfortunately, your request did not match that format.

Next time you need dispute resolution, you might get better results by choosing one method at a time instead of several methods at once. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] In this instance, Requests for comment seems to be the best alternative.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 It really isn't pointless at all.  The information - the point of view - I am trying to provide would have helped me enormously; I would still have many friendships I have lost, still have my mental and physical health.  I think it's very important.  And documenting it is impossible; there is no research available.  I am doing wikipedia a favor and being treated like a child for my trouble.  This is a primary resource, and many other articles (for instance, the Animal Rights article) explicitly discuss counterarguments in their headers.  You editors are being short-sighted and unreasonable, sticking to the letter of your limited authority instead of considering my point.
-If I try to add an opposing viewpoint section to any of these articles, you'll just delete that too.  This is the problem with the internet.  A primary resource being edited by sticklers who can't contribute or edit, and just delete anything that isn't arbitrarily academic enough.  But all the academics on this topic are shallow, ivory-tower vegans.  I have put this whole matter up for mediation; if I lose, wikipedia will be responsible for failing to adequately inform people on a very serious, life-altering subject, a subject at least as serious as drugs.  You're being, in a word, vain.
+If I try to add an opposing viewpoint section to any of these articles, you'll just delete that too.  This is the problem with the internet.  A primary resource being edited by sticklers who can't contribute or edit, and just delete anything that isn't arbitrarily academic enough.  But all the academics on this topic are shallow, ivory-tower vegans.  I have put this whole matter up for mediation; if I lose, wikipedia will be responsible for failing to adequately inform people on a very serious, life-altering subject, a subject at least as serious as drugs.  You're being, in a word, vain.  {{Unsigned|Repeat2341|01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)}}
 ==Talk pages==