Hi Vanished user kasjqwii3km4tkid! 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! --Viriditas | Talk 05:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki guidelines state articles are supposed to be 20 to 30K. The old article was becoming way too long and bloated. Talk pages document well document why. It need a good bit of editing down to remove duplications, correct punctuation and specifically the misplaced " environmental criticism ", the contributor of which was refusing to take on board the very fair and detailed counter-criticism.

This criticism was founded on the original contributor's use of statistics that pointed out the deforestation caused by soya bean consumption was due to it being used for the meat industry. A point the contributor repeatedly refused to acknowledge on either the topic or personal talk page. I am happy to go into more detail about this but simply put neither soya nor rice are synonymous with vegan. If there are issue arising from their production that it best placed on their own topic pages. It is plain hypocritical to use criticism of the meat industry as a criticism of veganism.

I'd go easy on accusation of " vandalism ". The definition of vandalism is simple and clear. What you have here is an edit to fit the topic within guidelines. Very little apart from duplications and a tiny inhouse politicking have actually been removed. It is par for the course that contentious topics becoming overweight and bloats as antagonistic parties chose to pad out their POVs with claims and rebuttals but at the end of the day, a wiki topic is just meant to define what something is and give you a few links to go find out more. Not a discussion forum or political soapbox. 195.82.106.64 09:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Your aggressive edit warring and vandalism have resulted in Veganism being protected. There is absolutely no consensus on the Talk: Veganism page for your edits. Trimming fat is one thing; you are removing material that does not conform to your POV. It is disingenuous for you to claim that disagreements over agriculture are "tiny inhouse politicking", and you know it. Please stop vandalizing the article before your IP gets banned.Skinwalker 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this particular anon is propagating a very biased view in Wikipedia across related articles like Environmental vegetarianism etc. where he is merrily changing everything to suit his view. Even my tags of POV and limited geographic scope are being constantly removed by him. The Veganism page was locked for a while, but if he continues this abusive behaiour, I'll be reporting him in a couple of days. We'll see where it goes from here. Tx for the concern. --Idleguy 11:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took great care not to revert three times. Retract it immediately. --Leifern 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether to include information about environmentally destructive agriculture of meat animals, and whether to include information about rates of eating disorders among vegans and vegetarians. Page has been subject to a Livejournal-based campaign to eliminate contradictory information."

Skinwalker, please explain yourself. I wish to know where you got the idea of some LiveJournal campaign, and why you placed such an opinion on the RfC page. I'm not sure how much attention you've been paying to the article, or know of the users involved in the attempt to bring it back to something resembling neutrality, but Nidara was active on this article before I came back to it, as was Francis Tyers. We've been the three doing most everything, and the other users that I've seen are established as well. Do you know what my motives are? Do you even know if I have any? No. You don't. No matter what you assume, you don't know. So please don't go around saying so. I do not appreciate it. Canaen 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I placed this "opinion" of a livejournal campaign on the RfC as a result of a few simple google and technorati searches. If you edit my RfC summary again I will report you for vandalism. It is perfectly clear what your motive is: to eliminate any information that contradicts vegan dogma. Do not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise. How long will it take you to move this exchange over to your "nonsense" page? You are generating serious bad faith around here, and I therefore suggest you tone down your belligerent and self-righteous attitude. Cheers, Skinwalker 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from assuming things that you do not know, particularly in reference to other people. To suggest that I am so intollerant is highly offensive to me. So is suggsting that I have any ulterior motives, or that I follow any sort of dogma. A continuation of this will result in my reporting you for making personal attacks, as well as harrassment. I don't like using Admins this way; it's not very conducive to building an encylcopedia. However, at present, you are preventing me from that very task, and so in this instance it is. This will not go to me Nonsense page, because I brought the issue up here, on your talk page. I therefore regard this as the place to discuss the issue. Again, please refrain from attacking me. It doesn't get either of us anywhere. Canaen 04:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canaen, as I've repeatedly mentioned on your talk page, moving polite discussion to a sub-page titled "nonsense" in your user space is not conducive to civility. I recently left you a number of polite comments regarding consensus, edit summaries, personal attacks, and civility, only to be accused of "defacing" your talk page and having my comments labeled "nonsense" and being told they were "worthless". After pointing out that I found this disturbing and highly damaging to effective communication and asking you to refrain from doing it, you intentionally did it again, moving my polite comments to a "nonsense" page with the edit summary "nonsense". Please keep this in mind when making your "report". Thank you. --Viriditas 06:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I know your position about my page. I have tried to explain it to you. I use Nonsense very lightly, and explained this to you. I appreciate your reminders, I really do. However, they aren't incredibly relevant anymore. especially to others. I can access my Nonsense page whenever I like, as can anyone else if they've a mind to read its contents. My edit summary of "nonsense" was because the edit invovled my nonsense page. If it truly is that big of a deal to you, I will change my words. However, I sincerely wish you to know that I am not trying to offend you with those words. Canaen 08:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have stated that Veganism "has been subject to a Livejournal-based campaign to eliminate contradictory information." Can you offer any links (or diffs) to discussion on which you base this claim? I only ask because I haven't been following this issue as closely as I would like. And, if this is indeed the case, I believe that according to WP:SOCK (see Meatpuppets section) we may treat them as sock puppets. Please leave me a comment on my talk page or send me an email. Thank you. --Viriditas 07:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I've found it, and I've added the link to the RFC page. --Viriditas 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try to collect the diffs (links) for the personal attacks from the edit history. I'll ask an admin to contact you. --Viriditas 14:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My collection is being placed here: /RfC Skinwalker 18:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not put the link on the RfC please -- evidence can be diplayed on the relevent talk page, but the RfC project page is not the place to continue the dispute. Thanks! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I completely agree that the link and suspected meatpuppetry may be relevant to the current content dispute, I do not agree that the RfC page is the right place for that discussion. The LiveJournal link is discussed on the talk page already and I'd hope anyone wading into the RfC would be contentious enough to read about the dispute before offering an opinion. I know it has to be incredibly difficult dealing with the personal attacks and threats -- I noticed that the IP did receive a block for their behavior, so perhaps you'll have a little relief. I put note on the Admin's notice board that I made the change and someone is welcome to revert it if they feel the longer comment on the RfC was more appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you come and take a look at the Environmental vegetarianism page, read through it thoroughly and give your opinions on the talk page, noting if you have any objections. I've tried to introduced a world-wide view into the article as well as making it NPOV and would like to get your input - FrancisTyers 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I posted this response to your RFC on Canaen.

I would like to point out that in British English the word nark is non-pejorative and I understand that it has an objective meaning something akin to a " snitch " in American. That is, meaning someone that makes, often erroneous, allegations to authorities in order to personally benefit themselves in some way.

The funniest thing for me is that you are busy digging a hole in your own canoe because your allegations are lies. You are entirely wrong. I know this because I know who I am and I know with whom I have and have had connections and I take a very minor little offence at being accused by the likes of you of being something I am not. I state " very minor little offence " because you and your views genuinely are so unimportant.

You are an individual of very little decency and integrity. I do not state this as an insult but as an objective statement. You have been told on many occasions that I have no connection with this or these other individuals and yet you not only continue to go on making such allegations but you even use them as the ground to make an attack on another individual.

Don't worry, Karma will come and get you in its own time. 195.82.106.78 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I have filed a user conduct RFC on you. It can be found here. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, who do you think this nark Skinwalker is and why is he so motivated to go about doing what he is doing? I put this record up in the open for you and them to see because I have no and have had no connection with you nor any of the journal pages and, frankly, I take offence at being called a meat or sockpuppet of yours when I am not. I am sure that you are just or even more upset as being accused of a connection with me when you have none.

Unfortunately though, that is the depth of Skinwalker's lies and the shallowness of Skinwalker's integrity.

• Where he has no grounds he invents them and he is, oh, so clever at playing WikiTricks with all these technical terms and methods.

I am starting to feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany being hunted down, connected to individuals which I have no connection with and their so-called crimes and accused of crimes which are not mine.

And what of Viriditas? He just seems to get off on throwing around his weight whilst avoiding entering into the actually factual discussion.

For the record - and let them love every minute of their persecution syndrome, let them avidly copy and paste and make little weblinks to this as they are so good at Wikitricks - I am a vegan of 20 years or more standing and, arguably, MacDonald of Clanranald. I became involved in editing the vegan article before you returned to it recently. I am entirely responsible for kicking this whole thing off because I refused to let Idleguy get away with his ridiculous domination of the article and I put Skinwalker in the same category for his anorexic stuff.

From my point of view, my objections are largely literary. The article became too bloated and required editing down. It is merely meant to be a definition of what vegan is. I don't see any point in actually engaging in those that oppose veganism. I don't even support vegan's trying to counter counter-vegan propaganda on the Wiki. It is best to keep it short and simple and give a few links so that folks that are interested can go find out more.

I approached Skinwalker reasonably and got the same sort of response as you did, see ; [1]. When Viriditas started to engage in his revisions without consultation, I tried to engage him in reasonable discussion, see ; [2]. But he just ignores it.

Fine. I showed respect, they showed themselves for what they are.

I find it weird in a way that individuals can become so obsessed by something that they obviously do not love but instead want to demean or destroy - and that means you now - and are willing to invest so much time and energy into it.

I could understand it if Skinwalker was a paid employee of the meat industry - he says he has professional scientific interest in animal husbandry. That would just make him a paid publicist. But if he is doing this and attacking you in his own free time, I pity him deeply.

"What were you doing all this evening on your computer, darling?" His wee wifie asks him.

"Oh, I spent hours trying to stomp on vegans on the internet, made a really good complaint against one and tried to mess up their article with references to anorexics who think they are vegetarians "

"That's nice."