User talk:Repeat2341

Welcome!

Hi Repeat2341! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Skinwalker 16:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Actually, Wikipedia is not a primary source at all. It's very much a tertiary source. We base everything in Wikipedia on reliable secondary sources. And talking about what you're experiencing as being "the problem with the internet" shows a lack of understanding of how the internet works. If you just want to sound off about what you consider to be important, there are many forums on the internet for you to do that, including Usenet News (see Google Groups for a web interface), free hosting websites (of which you already have one) and web discussion forums. Remember also, that Wikipedia is based on consensus. Here, the consensus is clearly not in favour of your recent edits. You might find the list of what Wikipedia is not instructive in this regard - Especially, take note of the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Slashme 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; Wikipedia is very much a primary source of information for an increasingly large number of people. Leaving an article like this imbalanced to uphold the one-dimensional principles you're talking about ought to be a crime. I hope you'll be ashamed of yourself when the time comes, at least.

And as to the matter of consensus, this issue has a name, the "problem of democracy" or the "tyranny of the majority." If you had a bit more objectivity about the role wikipedia is playing in contemporary culture (replacing all other references?), you'd take seriously the idea of "letting one slip through the gate" to be sure this article was not a danger to children.

But you're all too proud of your little editing 'careers' to see that. It's a crying shame. Repeat2341 03:19, 4 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.

I hope these thoughts are useful in your future requests for help. Charm ©† 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas

Let me apologize that no one has formally welcomed you to the project. I put a variety of links on the top of your talk page - please read them. Not all editors of veganism or animal rights pages necessarily support those topics, but by and large we are all committed to putting forth these topics in a neutral and verifiable fashion. There is room for criticism in these articles, if it is well-sourced, neutral, and represents a significant view. The problem with the link and material you've been trying to add is that it fails Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and external links. Self-published sources are typically frowned upon. Also, since it is your personal website you've been adding and describing, it can be perceived as a conflict of interest. I hope this summarizes the objections people have had to your edits. Please read all of these links, and ask me if you have further questions. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism

Please stop adding notices in the article declaring that it is unbalanced. Also, please do not attack other users in your edit summaries. Both of these are liable to get you warned and blocked for a period of time as a vandal. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever

And why should there not be any indication that the article is completely imbalanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 21:05, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the article does not maintain a neutral point of view, actually take a stab at getting rid of emotive language and 'weasel' words and phrases such as 'clearly' or 'it is obvious', if such things exist. At the moment, your edits are entirely unconstructive, at best. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be that it maintains a neutral point of view,if it doesn't contain any of the counterarguments at all? Repeat2341 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is true, is that it doesn't seem to provide much criticism of veganism (although, in fairness, the introduction stays mostly to facts, and pretty much everything is properly referenced). So, if you can find such criticism from a reliable and verifiable source, feel free to integrate it into the article. Try to avoid antagonising the other editors, though. If you can do this, discussing on the talk page where appropriate, I'll support you. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the empty opposing section is because it was added flippantly to make a point which is frowned upon, in addition to the fact that it made the page look incomplete. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I added it because there was no other option left open to me. The page should have such a section. The page IS incomplete, and this at least points that up.Repeat2341 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the edit summary was, "Added Opposing and Alternative POV section, but no content, since there are no opposing or alternative points of view, at all, in the entire world." it is quite clear, no matter how much you claim otherwise, that you were using the edits to make a point otherwise you would not have included the sarcastic comment "since there are no opposing or alternative points of view, at all, in the entire world." and added the section blank. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, only the edit summary was intended as a jab; I hoped it might put some sense into the editor reading it and get it past the goalline. I guess I was wrong. You're not acting impartially at all. An empty section is better than no section at all. You won't LET me add any content that would of any use to anybody to the page. So what am I supposed to be doing here? You won't edit my edits, you just delete them. You won't give me any options at all to improve the balance of these pages without becoming an animal law professor and getting a book published - all to prove the obvious, obvious, obvious fact that animals in feedlots do nothing but eat all day.

Isn't there some rule about not having to provide references for 'well-known' facts? Even in academic circles, this is common practice; logic is treated as a separate source of information from facts. Repeat2341 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not on the contrary, as using the edit summary to, as you put it, have a jab, is still using wikipedia to make a point, which by your own admission (by stating that you did use the edit summary as a jab) you have just done. Some times it is best to perhaps not post on here for a couple of days especially when things seem to get heated, then come back on again and try again. Maybe go and find some reliable sources as has been suggested to you, and then coming back and editing articles with reliable sources. Just a thought. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Repeat, I'm going to regard your edits — that factory-farm animals have it good because all they do is sit around eating, and what they really need is some feedlot music, which you're willing to provide — as vandalism from now on, and I'll be rolling them back without further comment. If you continue for much longer, it's likely that someone will block this account, so if any part of you is serious about becoming an editor, please read our content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR) and start editing in accordance with them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're a serious partisan, so I honestly think you should resign your position. Repeat2341 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go find some high quality, reliable sources that can be used to verify this position as a significant, widespread idea and then you can discuss what might reasonable done much better. Editing in line with policy and in accord with the principles of Wikipedia is likely to make you friends and be productive - the opposite actions are likely to have the opposite effects. WilyD 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my entire point is that a simple, logical fact that might escape people when terms like CAFO, factory farm and intensive farm are used (rather than feedlot) - the one fact that escaped me for many years - does not need to be referenced to anything. It's the definition of such an operation that the animals do nothing but sit around and eat. Why can't something like that be pointed out, to help people think about the issue in more than one way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs)

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:SlimVirgin, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Will ^(talk) 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of This user is a serious partisan who won't consider balancing animal rights articles.

A tag has been placed on This user is a serious partisan who won't consider balancing animal rights articles., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Momusufan 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was added by mistake, due to a misleading box at the talk of SlimVirgin's talk page. I am sorry about it. Repeat2341 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as This user is a serious partisan who won't consider balancing animal rights articles., you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Momusufan 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for disruptive behaviour. You can place the {{unblock|reason you should be unblocked}} on your userpage to have this block reviewed, if you wish. Once your block expires, please reconsider your behaviour and the principles of civility here on Wikipedia - otherwise you're likely to find yourself facing increasingly long blocks. Cheers, WilyD 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for harassment. Please focus on editing, not on attacking or harassing fellow editors or admins. Crum375 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair. I wasn't harassing anyone. I'm trying to open a discussion, and every avenue is blocked to me. You should read through this thing more.

You can discuss your issues without harassing fellow editors. You are free to post your grievances here, and when your block expires, at other dispute resolution locations. If you persist in harassing other editors, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods. Crum375 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wasn't harassing anyone. I don't see why I was blocked. So far, my attempts to make any use of any of the avenues of dispute resolution have been totally blocked. I'm stymied and frustrated and tired of hearing the same spam from every editor that looks over one of the half dozen posts relating to this matter. I wish I could get somebody with some senior authority here to evaluate the matter, as it is quite serious.

I am not alone in thinking that SlimVirgin is abusing her power to bias the animal rights pages toward her own point of view; there are numerous mentions of this in the talk pages. Adding this to her talk page is in NO WAY inappropriate. Deleting it is inappropriate. Otherwise, how do we check someone once they've become an administrator? Repeat2341 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat, you are spending your efforts in the wrong direction, and getting yourself and others frustrated in the process. What you need to do is:

Find reliable sources that back up your views
Refrain from attacking or harassing editors - focus on the message, not the messenger

Specifically, go to the talk page of the article you want to edit, find good solid reliable published sources, and present them in a professional manner. You will be able to insert them into the article if they are relevant and of good quality. Conversely, if you can't find good sources and are just hand waving, or if you attack or harass other editors, you will eventually be blocked from this site. So make up your mind and decide on your course of action. Crum375 06:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What articles should be

I'm not actually sure that this is a particularly mainstream view on my part, but I will say this - most articles should have very little "pro" or "con" in them - they should be, for the most part, neutral descriptions of the thing. Veganism should devote very little (if any) space to whether it's good or bad, and just say what it is. Heroin shouldn't spend very much time saying it's great or it's lousy - it should say neutral things about Heroin and let the reader decide whether it's great or it's lousy. Veganism should consist mostly of what veganism is, where veganism comes from, what the history of veganism, and so on - not whether it's good or bad. Anyways, I will caution you that if you try to "fix" the culture or purpose of Wikipedia, you're unlikely to be successful - you need to work within the rules and customs here. That does usually mean starting with reliable sources and working from there - and despite common objections, widely held viewpoints are usually easy to source - and I've spent time digging up "obvious facts" from reliable sources. If you feel the article is unbalanced, that can probably be addressed, but how to address it is something that you'll have to learn. Anyways, it's pretty late, but I'll see if I can't give you some better advice about where to start tommorow. Cheers, WilyD 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you...

Look, I understand where you're coming from, that's the thousandth time one of you has said 'you need reliable sources.' I'm a college graduate; I'm not doing this for my health.

What I feel you're not getting is, there's NO WAY to 'reliably source' something like 'animals in a feedlot do nothing but eat all day.' That's what a feedlot is. That's the entire concept behind CAFOs, but this fact eluded me for years because of the way vegans present the issue and the whole concept that it is a scary, evil-spirited 'factory farm.' Without getting in to the larger moral opposition to veganism, as a plague on the hard working's mental health, can you or anyone else give me some idea how I can have this fact, which would have changed my life, included in the new 'paper of record?'

Otherwise, I must say, I'm quite disappointed in what I thought was a process that was fairly functional. I'm also quite upset that you have so little interest in the effect a poorly written expose on a subject as serious as heroin can have on kids. A 'purely factual' story can be a de facto endorsement. This isn't kids' stuff; you're in the process of effecting the education of a generation, whether you'll admit it or not.

The article on heroin absolutely does contain a variety of information on the harmful effects of heroin. The veganism article contains only mentions of health risks that all vegans I've met know to counteract with multivitamins. That's like only talking about how sharing dirty needles is unsafe, and not mentioning that heroin addicts have no place in the work world. These are things people need to know; it's unfair to the community and dishonest of you not to have such important articles presenting the full range of relevant information, whether scientific or logical. Which is another point that's being ignored in favor of mentioning, again, that 'all your sentences must be from textbooks.'

I am a busy person. I work and have other things in my life. I am serious about making this happen, because I feel you are dispensing rat poison with a 'just following orders' mentality, and it's truly unfair. But I have only limited resources. I don't know HOW to research something like this. The entire concept that I should research it, as I've already said, is a bit absurd to me; it's not a researchable thing.

sigh* I guess I'll just have to console myself with having tried to make any kind of difference. Not even one link in a long list of pro-veganism websites can be an anti- or alternative site, just because I'm the one who wrote it. I mean, what if I went to a different IP, signed up for wiki and posted the link? You know? This is all fairly asinine; you've wasted my whole weekend over refusing to add even ONE link to an alternative point of view, and you're telling me I'm the one who doesn't get wikipedia.

Yuck. Repeat2341 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... as an aside, the original link was removed before anyone even asked me if I _was_ the author. And I've never said, before this post, that I am. So where did that arbitrary decision come from? I smell bias, whether it's in favor of not changing articles, for experienced editors' decisions (irregardless), against links, or for veganism. And I am, with apologies, fairly upset that I've been given no actual recourse to address this.

If you'll review the links that ARE on the veganism page, you'll find that nearly all of those sites are not so much informational as polemical. Almost every single one is a classic, verified, long-standing pro-vegan site. I had to write my own opposition. So what the heck am I supposed to do now, if there's no way and no where to spread any kind of balance on this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign at the bottom of each talk page comment.

I just noticed the Factory farming article includes the following cited quote in the Characteristics section:

They're in state-of-the-art confinement facilities. The conditions that we keep these animals in are much more humane than when they were out in the field. Today they're in housing that is environmentally controlled in many respects. And the feed is right there for them all the time, and water, fresh water. They're looked after in some of the best conditions, because the healthier and [more] content that animal, the better it grows. So we're very interested in their well-being — up to an extent.[20] [Emphasis added]

Veganism has a prominent link to Factory farming, right at the top of the Ethical concerns section. Isn't this pretty much what you're working to have included? Charm ©† 09:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]