User talk:Canaen/Request for Comment

Welcome to my own Request for Comments page. I encourage constructive criticism regarding my performance on Wikipedia, and this is the page to do it on.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Destructive criticism belongs on its own page (vandalism, profanity, pictures of male genatalia, etc)
Start a new talk topic.

Veganism

Aloha. Your efforts may meet with more success if you try and build consensus on the talk page before removing large sections. Also, try to make your case brief and to the point. It may also be wise to rewrite the section yourself (per your suggestion) and allow other editors to comment on it. You may even want to list the article on RFC for more input from the community. --Viriditas 08:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I will take them into consideration. The information Idelguy has presented over and over has nothing to do with Veganism, as noted by several others before me. I had one paragraph for each paragragh removed -- fairly brief, by my standards. Therefore, a re-write of the information would not be in the best interests of the article. This is why I said "at least." If he would respond, and prove his information relevant, I would be glad to let it into the article. However, as it is, I see it entirely irrelevant, no matter how many times he adds it back into the article, no matter how long he continues to blatently ignore others' problems with his placement of information. Canaen 08:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to rewrite the section before deleting it. --Viriditas 08:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the information were at all relevant, then I would agree whole-heartedly. However, it isn't. If you have other reasons why, from an Environmentalist and/or ecological standpoint, Vegans should be criticized, then please, add it to the page. Otherwise, the section shouldn't exist. Canaen 08:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good case can be made on either side, which is why keeping the content with rebuttals is essential for NPOV. I can argue for or against both. The current section is a direct criticism of the vegan "environmental considerations" section. --Viriditas 09:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see either Rice or Soy Bean cultivation promoted in the Environmental conerns section of the article. Please point them out to me. In fact, their only mention, as far as I can tell, is about how they are wasted on livestock. Canaen 09:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main article is Environmental vegetarianism, where these criticisms actually appear. They are included on the Veganism page for good measure and describe why such environmental considerations don't necessary apply. For example, the environmental considerations section states: "Animals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops...In fact, 90 percent of soy and 80 percent of corn grown in United States is consumed by livestock...The result is that producing food through livestock is much less efficient than typical harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits." Idleguy's environmental criticism section attempts to directly address these issues. --Viriditas 09:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I left this rather open-ended, as a result of Nidara's comments afterward. Thank you for your comments. I think this was resolved on relevant talk pages. Canaen 11:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Viriditas 06:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do, when I'm doing anything more than grammar. The only exception to this would be on Clan Fraser of Lovat, of which I'm the only editor at present, and I didn't think to add edit summaries. Otherwise, I believe that I have done so. If you have any particular situations in which I have failed to do so, I'd be happy to explain myself; I'd much appreciate it. Canaen 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See it for yourself: Green bars are for edit summaries, red bars are for edits with no summaries. --Viriditas 07:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a nifty tool there. I'm fully aware of edit summaries. I don't provide edit summaries on my own talk page, or my User Page. I also don't usually provide them on other users' talk pages. In earlier editing, I didn't take the summary seriously; if you're referring to anything from several months ago or more, I do apologize. Like I said: if you have any particular situations where you believe I missed one, please bring them up to me. I would sincerely like to know. Otherwise, I don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. Canaen 07:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link speaks for itself. As for what I'm trying to accomplish, I think my original comment explained just that. --Viriditas 07:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you were trying to just helpfully remind me, I thank you, though I don't think it was needed. I saw the page; it didn't say anything to me, except that I finally know my edit count. If you really want to get a point across to me, I suggest you do so blatantly. If your original comment explained your motives, then we are done here. Canaen 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets

Based on the LiveJournal campaign that you've initiated, I'm going to respectfully ask that you review the Meatpuppet section on WP:SOCK. --Viriditas 07:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your request.

It is not a campaign.
Feel free to read the post. Skinwalker hunted it down through google, and posted it on the Veganism Talk Page.
I have read that page. I was trying to attract attention to the article, yes. That community is full of knowledgable folk, and is an excellent resource for finding things out. Many, many people are members. I'm sorry if you view attracting others to Wikipedia as a bad thing. I did not order them to do anything. They aren't friends. I was bringing in outside voices. I have argued consistently on many topics with many of them, and I repsect the community as a good place for discussion. I do not converse with any of them other than in that community. What you see on that page is all that has happened between me and any of them in regards to Wikipedia. If you see a distinct problem with it, please let me know. None of them are meatpuppets, and I expect they'd all be fairly offended at the accusation. Feel free to contact them; they probably have contact information on their Live Journal User Info pages. Again, thank you for your request. I'm sure that you are only doing what you think is best for the encyclopedia. Canaen 07:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

For 24 hours for continued personal attacks. You are free to continue in discussions once you return, but please cease personal attacks or meatpuppet activies. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you honestly are trying to benefit the Wikipedia, Woohookitty. However, I do not believe that your actions are justified. I've sent you an email accordingly, because with the block in place, I am unable to explain, let alone attempt to defend myself anywhere else. I ask that you utilize your Sysop powers with much more caution in the future, and you make damned sure that you know who you're blocking, and why. This is not a threat to you -- I simply don't think that you meant to block me; I believe you meant to block the anonymous user who posted all the "evidence" that you think justifies my being blocked. Please review Talk:Veganism's history. Canaen 04:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. [1] --Viriditas 22:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I missed one, however I looked at the article, and my edit hadn't made it. So, I went back and made it, with a summary. I wasn't aware that the former had made it through. Canaen 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Fraser Inverallochy arms.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Fraser Inverallochy arms.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Riot Folk large.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Riot Folk large.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, really...

Dear Canaen, I'm sorry to bother you but I have a simple question that I'm having great difficulty finding the answer to. My name is William Jones. I too, am a Celt but I live in the US. I'm developing a travelogue type show to inspire people to visit some of the more 'out of the way' destinations in the British Isles. In a perfect world, I'd live there as well. Anyhow, my producer has handed me a question: Who were the invaders of Ireland who burned their own boats rather than be repelled by the Irish? I'm thinking it took place around 600AD by the Vikings but I can't seem to find this relatively obscure factoid. It sounds like a fascinating story which I'd like to develop into one of our episodes. Seeing how I am also a surfer (Long board-long boats), I'd like to tie that in to the historical picture. I think it'd make one hell of an interesting story. If you can help I'd be greatly indebted. My e-mail is jbillyjones@yahoo.com Thanks and continued success to ya..William