User talk:Localzuk/archive4

Your unjustified use of term "vandalism"
Why did you remove the link to a biography at the Becky Anderson page, and then label it "vandalism" when I restored an otherwise useful and legitimate link? --Paraponon 15:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From my email a couple of days ago:

''I reverted as vandalism due to the fact that your edit also removed another section, altered a category to one which didn't exist, removed an interwiki link and added a link to a forum/fansite (which is not allowed, per the guidelines at WP:EL).

To answer the questiom about the other page, I have removed a couple of the links per the guidelines mentioned above.''

And from my one today:

''I have pointed you to the external links guideline and have told you why I reverted it as vandalism - because it broke various things. Ok, it might have been a legit edit but I didn't see it as that.''

So, my choice of the word 'vandalism' was based on a variety of things. Yes, it does appear that your edit was simply to try and re-instate a link that violates WP:EL so my use of 'vandalism' does appear to be wrong but at the time I could not have known that. I would ask you to take a look at what my edit actually reverted here. You will see the mess your edit made and why I reverted it. Can you not see why I would see this as vandalism?

And, to re-iterate, it is not a legitimate link as it violates WP:EL as it is a forum, and a fansite.-Localzuk(talk) 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, guys. Just a genuine mistake as far as I can see, as a neutral. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This was exceptionally bad "editing" on the part of Localzuk, and also of myself. My only intention was to restore the link that Localzuk had unfairly removed. Nothing else was intended. In any case, the other, unintended, stuff was certainly not vandalism either. In emails, Localzuk has patronised me and told me I know nothing about Wikipedia. I never claimed to, I am just a reader and occasional contributer, who seems to understand the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism" far better than this official editor does. Perhaps I should restate that - former contributer, because, after Localzuk's authoritarian interpretation of "the rules" I am now apprehensive about contributing anything else in good faith, in case he comes along and destroys it again then has me blocked because I am supposedly a "vandal." I have much sympathy with Mowens35 below. Localzuk, you claim to know the "rules," but from what I read of the guidelines, emailing Jimbo Wales because you have a dispute with another editor is not recommended.

Moreover, the very same content that Localzuk removed was formerly on a Wiki site, which a link had also been added for at the Becky Anderson Wikipedia page (this page is now defunct). Instead of removing that link - with the very same content - another Wikipedian tidied it up and added a bullet. And Refsworldlee has kindly suggested I restore the link Localzuk removed! Seems it's all a case of how you interpret the regulations...

So, what am I left to do with that content? Which, by the way, is the only source for such information on the internet. If I put the same content on my mac.com site will that be permissible? Or, will you delete that as well, even if it is completely legitimate? Paraponon 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I explained on User talk:Paraponon - (Becky Anderson), my 'suggestion' was that, if the link was re-added, care should be taken not to upset the content/formatting of the rest of the article. I made no representation as to its suitability, indeed I ventured to say that I thought it would again be removed. Whatever else, please do not misunderstand context or misquote me. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I guess I didn't understand what you meant by "You should go back and try adding your external link to 'External links' if you think it is notable enough". I thought you meant that if I believe it's notable enough, I should go back and try adding it. So, if I have the same content on a dedicated site, not a blog or a fan site, is that ok? What about YouTube links, are they ok? Paraponon 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As an editor in your own right, you can add or remove information to your heart's content. Only you will decide if what you add is notable enough or relevant enough. Those who remove, leaving explanations as to why, and backing it up with quotation of Wikipedia guidelines and policy, do so in good faith, and it is always up to the person adding to prove notability or relevance through reasoned argument. I am not here to defend you, Localzuk or myself. And I don't like sarcasm either. I think that's enough from me on the matter. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anderson Cooper
Tony, Anderson Cooper's quote re his sexuality or lack of declaration thereof should stay. Think like an editor: He was questioned about it by a reputable and well-known American journalist of the mainstream media; Cooper answered it, with a quote that actually sheds more light on how he sees himself as an anonymous journalist, itself of great interest. I'll keep replacing it just as fast as you keep deleting it.Mowens35 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, per a previous posting of mine:

He [Anderson] has commented on it publicly, if only to deflect any sexual identification. Ergo, it should be part of the article. It is part of his persona for an article, which includes not only his work but also his public image, detailed biography, etc. It should stay in the article, as written, which is non POV and merely stating the facts, with Cooper's comments also. We have included this in Prince Albert of Monaco's article, since he, too, has commented on the rumors publicly; why not here? Mowens35 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I mean, Tony: Think harder about your edit than making a blanket delete. That's irresponsible. His quote to Van Meter of New York magazine was in RESPONSE to public speculation in various arenas. Therefore it is of interest, ie he made a public comment about it. And please don't think every comment directed at you re reverting is a threat; sometime's a comment's just a comment. If you are eager to block people for simply disagreeing with you, that is your right, alas.Mowens35 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it not only provided his only public answer to the present date, it also casts light on how he views his role as a journalist, ie the less personal information out there, the better. This section has stood the test of time for some months now, and for you to jump in and make a blanket delete is irresponsible, to my mine. It deserves to be in the article.Mowens35 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It also might be possible that you may be unaware of the great interest, published and unpublished, in America regarding Cooper's life and details. However, since a major American journalist (Jonathan Van Meter) questioned Cooper (a major American media figure) on the furor generated over comments made about his personal life by another well-known media figure (Michael Musto) in an award-winning American gay general-interest magazine (Out), the graph seems well-documented and worth including.Mowens35 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have emailed Jimbo Wales and have sent you a copy of my email, as a courtesy.Mowens35 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, this is why articles have discussion pages, to stop us all from preemptorily contacting Mr Wales for his opinion. You should have read over all the discussions on the discussion page. Wiki is a group effort, with multiple suggestions and recommendations but no apparent hard-and-fast rules. There was a reason why the text reads the way it now does. Your decision to delete entirely without discussion is rather non-WIki in my personal opinion. I am not your adversary; annoyed at your preemptory decision to delete information, yes, an adversary, no! Mowens35 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, Mr Wales has responded; I hope my revision is acceptable. I have put the info back where it once was, ages ago, just above Trivia. I hope this matter can be retired now.Mowens35 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your desire to make the section even shorter, after I removed much of it, is now arm-twisting, not compromise. I want the quote; you wanted the section shortened and reference to the previous article removed as gossip. These have now been done. Hence, compromise. Mowens35 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I recall from Jimbo's email, he was offering suggestions, not a directive. You wanted compromise. I have given compromise. I have shortened, acceding to your wish; I have removed information, acceding to your wish. I have even moved the material to practically the bottom of the article. All I ask for? The quote to be retained. That is all. Surely this is a compromise. Perhaps you are too young to realize that yet, but please note that this, indeed, a compromise.Mowens35 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I have done some research, and honestly could not care less. I'm precisely twice as old as you, which is neither here nor there. What is disturbing me is your insistence on achieving what you want over what I or anybody else wants. Your comments and concerns have resulted in action on my part. But still, you state, "I will accept this as it is for the time being", which implies a certain foolhardy stubborness and determination to get your way. As I said, I want the quote and see no reason to cut it to fit your desires. I've already cut the section enough. You're being quite imperial.Mowens35 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Criticism on Firefox article
You asked on talk page of the article about archiving of talk page, but have you read all my comments on that page? I've added link to article about security problems in FF2.0 which were not corrected in FF2.0.0.1. I think it should be noted in the article. Besides, old praise is included (Forbes - "best browser"), so old article from heise.de should be also included in "Security" section. BTW - this section (almost completely) lacks criticism. There is too much comparisons with MSIE. MSIE is so bad that this in practice means nothing, it is really easy to be better in regard of security than MSIE.

Also, criticism related with "advanced" antiphishing deserves mention. I've given URL to article about this (about google extension which is now integrated with browser), it is in archive now.

Another criticism is related with EULA and privacy. From: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox2-en.html :

"4. PRIVACY POLICY. You agree to the Mozilla Firefox Privacy Policy, made available online at www.mozilla.com/legal/privacy/, as that policy may be changed from time to time. When Mozilla changes the policy in a material way a notice will be posted on the website at www.mozilla.com and when any change is made in the privacy policy, the updated policy will be posted at the above link. It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand the terms of the privacy policy, so you should periodically check the current version of the policy for changes."

So, it is reponsibility of the user to check privacy policy from time to time! I think it is important enough to mention in the article. 193.219.28.146 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/12/two_things_that_bother_me_abou.html : "This extension is designed to help protect users from illegitimate resources, but the irony is that it has the potential to expose sensitive information about you when you visit legitimate resources!"


 * It is probably a little better in this regard now, because it (supposedly) uses RC4 algo to encrypt requests, but this algo is still weaker than full SSL. But I guess we have to wait for showing up a new "reliable sources" about this... oh well. 193.219.28.146 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot -- I believe showing history of security issues is also important. It shows whether problems were rectified and how, so one may develop some opinion about browser and its future in this regard... 193.219.28.146 23:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many images?
I note that you have contributed greatly to West Highland White Terrier in the past. I am inviting opinions about whether there are currently:
 * not enough
 * enough
 * or

images on this page.
 * too many

I say this without cant, but am concerned that one particular "superfluous image" is currently yo-yoing in and out of the content, and I am trying to start a discussion about this here.

Your input would no doubt be invaluable. Refsworldlee 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:WP:ANI comments
RE:

I support you on the NPA claim - that statement is unacceptable but the vehemance with which you are going after this editor leaves something to be desired. One of the first stages of WP:DR is to take a step back and calm down. I'd suggest trying it. A clear head helps you focus and find what you are looking for easier.-Localzuk(talk) 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Localzuk, your 100% correct. I appreciate your comments.  As my temperature has risen, I have been getting off of wikipedia for longer and longer.  I stayed off for the entire day yesterday.  I apologize for my vehemance, which I am painfully aware actually hurts, not helps my points.  Thank you. Travb (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Scan (Newspaper) page you worked on?
As of my time stamp below, the Wiki link to the page Scan (Newspaper) which is included in your section Main pages I have worked on at your user page is red and therefore not a page? Just pointed this out for good order's sake, spirit of friendliness and all that. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously nothing gets past you! :-( Cheers anyway. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: CADA 1999
Not monitoring, Tony, it just appears on my watchlist each time as I have my preferences set to watch every page I create or contribute to - I just thought that what I added was expansion (pity about the lack of online pre-1987 Acts though!), so felt 'bold' enough to go ahead. If you had altered/removed my expansion, I would have deferred to you as the creator. And yes what a creation! It looks as if it was a job and a half. I have only a passing interest in law itself - I have a broader base of interests, so cannot see me concentrating too long on one subject (except for Westies, which I have a passion for, and have one myself, and do charity work for, etc., blah!). I am trying to summon up the courage (and time!) to create my first page, "The Adventures of Greyfriars Bobby", not a brilliant film admittedly, but it appears in red on West Highland White Terrier, and I'd like to change that - I think it's notable enough as a piece of cinematography, so you may well see it attempted before long. By the way, do you think this reference to it is authoritative enough to be considered a Reference for that Act? It's the only electronic transcript I could find that didn't appear on a solicitor's page or suchlike. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. They appear to have obtained Crown Copyright Permission, as claimed at this page. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: comma
I'd say it's more accepted than acceptable. As Serial comma states, it's pretty much just an Americanism. Cheers, SteveLamacq43 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
I just wanted to leave a short note to say thanks for your (neutral) comments on my RfA. I received a lot of good advice, and I'm grateful. Jakew 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Charlayne_Hunter-Gault.JPG
No, I didn't do that. What is it? Not familiar. Thanks, Cleduc 04:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kilborn Picture
Hey, warcraft guy. Thanks for pausing warcraft long enough to write to me. I don't see how that picture is replaceable. It's one of the few pictures anywhere on earth left of Craig Kilborn at the Daily Show since Comedy Central has all but denied his 3 years ever happened. Second its an illustration of a segment of the show that no longer exists in the John Stewart era. It's important and its irreplaceable. Just leave it be. Thanks. --Mark 2000 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Westie.JPG at West Highland White Terrier.
Hi. As a significant contributor to the page in question, you are invited to this page to give your opinion on the inclusion or exclusion of Image:Westie.JPG in the article West Highland White Terrier. The specific criteria being examined appear to be: Your comments are eagerly awaited. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * its suitability on quality grounds; and
 * whether it is deemed of sufficient quality, is it more deserving of being shown than other images currently contained within the article, bearing in mind that another issue might be the limitation on including too many images in the article.

Revert on Criticisms of Microsoft
Hi. Just wondering, what did you mean by "rv. That is what 'European Economic Area' means..." in your edit summary, when you reverted my edits. It is worth noting that the reason these licences and XP N are available is due to the Commission action, even though the Commission only has power within the EU. EU isn't the same as EEA. EEA includes Norway and Iceland. So what exactly did that edit summary mean? Thanks - Рэд хот (t • c • e) 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree, that I didn't format it very well. You're half-right about the EEA thing in practice, but the theory is the Commission only has power over the EU. But for decisions on market rules the whole EEA gets dragged along because it is one market. From Microsoft's POV it's something like "Well we have to provide XP N for the EU, and people can legally import with restriction to the rest of the EEA so we may as well sell it in all of the EEA". Like I said though, that's the practice, but the theory is different. - Рэд хот (t • c • e) 16:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of links which might be considered a Link Directory
Hi - I notice you have reduced the amount of external links contained at the bottom of the article West Highland White Terrier, citing WP:EL. Having read the resource, I am inclined to agree with you; however, I would like to know why, in your opinion, the remaining links should remain, and in what way they do not represent entries in a 'link directory'. This will further aid me in my experience as an editor and in making future balanced decisions whilst editing. Thanks! Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Better still, linking only to Kennel Clubs (AKC, EKC, AusKC, etc.) for each country, under an altered section headed 'References' rather than 'External Links', which I think encourages poor use of the linking in the article. From those Kennel club sites, referrers could then obtain details of officially recognised Clubs AND Rescue Organisations.  Would you be happy with that? Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. By the way, of course rescues are breed-specific - there are thousands.  For example, the Westie Rescue Scheme was not formed to help any other breed, although of course by conscience it would. If that's the context in which you meant it?  Just for argument's sake of course! Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you ever met me, you'd see that I have very few hairs I could spare to split, so sorry about that last comment - I see what you mean now! All the best Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Move
Hope it went well. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Salamanders40k.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Salamanders40k.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Advice, if you have time.
Hi. If you have a minute, could you give some advice regarding proposed 'disambig' page for article I have contributed successfully here (well, so far it hasn't been questioned or deleted!)? Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have resolved this with discussion in Disambiguation. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 13:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Phew! What a Wiki-break! Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * More Wikipower to your elbow then - enjoy. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war?
Chaps - I'm trying to de-fuse the animal testing articles, and I'm worried that as you two have strong anti-vivisectionist views, and I have strongly pro-medical testing (although I do not in any way condone animal cruelty or unnecessary testing), an edit war is liable to break out! I'd be obliged if either of you have MSN Messenger, if you could drop me a line at hawkertyphoon@hotmail.com to discuss this - it's easier than talk pages! if not, drop me a lin on my talk page with an arguemnt as to why we can't put percentages in? Thanks, Richard (AKA Hawker Typhoon 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

That's excellent - over the next few days I might make one or two more edits, but i won't try and hide anything! I can't express my beliefs on this much (I'm in the forces, and they never ever approve), but I feel that hiding facts or even giving one viewpoint precedence only hurts the image of the organistaion. Thanks for listening, regardless! Hawker Typhoon 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-ramp on!
You've been missed. Go go go. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 01:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

CCNA Logo
I don't think that strongly about it, but it fails Non-free content criteria #8. The article does not even mention the logo. The image also lacks a fair use rationale. Garion96 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lisp
I have a lisp. I was just doing an impression of someone without a lisp on the Julie Kirkbride page, but it was very difficult to keep up for more than one article's worth. Good day to you! Yeanold Viskersenn 21:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are Wrong About British Spelling
This is from the Oxford English Dictionary on "ize" and "ise:"


 * "However, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is hence often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism,[23] despite being preferred by some authoritative British sources, including Fowler's Modern English Usage and the Oxford English Dictionary, which until recently did not list the -ise form of many individual words, even as an alternative. Indeed, it firmly deprecates this usage, stating, "[T]he suffix…, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."[24] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[25]" |From Here

Since you could not provide a source, you are wrong. Oxford English Dictionary is the main source to determine any proper British spelling, and slang is not appropriate. Yes, "ise" is slang and not proper. Please change it back. Thank you. SanchiTachi 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Dictionary is the standard source for spelling, not popular spelling or slang. You are citing slang as proper spelling. Just because Wikipedia might have British pages spelling it wrong does not make it correct. The Oxford English Dictionary, as with the Times, and the other language centers of England, say that "ize" is proper and that "ise" is French and slang. According to Wikipedia standards, the Dictionary is right and "ize" MUST be accepted. SanchiTachi 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am quite calm and I did put this up for an up down consensus. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not accept slang. I will stand by that. It also conforms to the language of those who are writing the page, which would be the whole group (see the language variation page that is cited in the debate). here.
 * "So as 'ise' is an acceptable variant and it is accepted everywhere on this site, please leave it alone." As is "ize" and it must be respected. If the Dictionary says its correct, then it cannot rightful be removed. SanchiTachi 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NPA Warning
Your NPA warning was deleted from my page, as I have not made a personal attack. Personal attacks deal with the person, not with what they say. Saying that their actions are bad and are that of a jerk is describing an action. Person attacks are calling people stupid, retarded, idiotic, ugly, etc. Using the term jerk is acceptible and deals with people being rude to new people or improperly editing out others. There is a huge difference between the two. Please learn the difference before you rudely post such things on my talk page. If you cannot understand that, then I will remove any further postings of it on my talk page. If you keep it up, I will be forced to block you. I have been extremely curteous. However, your attack in that way -is- a personal attack, highly rude and insulting, and shows that you are not here for discussion. SanchiTachi 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I said you were no longer welcome there because there is a discussion already moved to the other page and that the NPA discussion does not belong there at all. The language discussion is here: WikiProject_Warhammer_40%2C000 and I thought I already made that clear. Now, by saying that I am violating rules and posting such on my page while you are not an admin and then going on and on about it, you are making personal attacks.


 * I also have a problem with you improperly citing NPA, or acting like you are an admin.

These are the WPAs:


 * Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
 * Threats of legal action.
 * Threats of violence, particularly death threats.
 * Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
 * Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.


 * "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."


 * That is exactly what I have done. I have not described anything about the person nor have I made any conjectures onto what kind of person it is. All I care about is the actual action of editing out people. That is all I have ever posted on, and being a jerk is a descriptive of the action of constantly editing out others.

There is no "fair is fair" or anything like that. Please, don't take this down to such a level. I only wanted you to take it to the appropriate place which I' put up for people to discuss. However, according to Wiki standards, credible sources must be respected, and no one wants to respect the Oxford English Dictionary which is the credible source for British spelling. I have posted a reply to you on my page.I just have no room for accusations about rule breaking without even a citation of which line of the rule I actually broke, and which the spirit of the rule obviously does not apply to me. SanchiTachi 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

factory farming imagery
The chicken image AND the swine image similarly are not identifiable as "factory farms" -- unless you apply the definition to the imagery. The problem here is that a "factory farm" is a perjorative term only used by enemies of industrial agriculture - and that such enemies will only apply the term to imagery that supports their arguments that industrial agriculture is bad.

Slimvirgin erred when moving the topic here from "industrial agriculture" to "factory farming" -- because industrial agriculture is what is really the topic of the article, while an article on factory farming would simply be an explanation of the origin and use of that perjorative term.

I would ask that you actually read the talk page text that Slimvirgin deleted. The deleted text explains the reasons for my edits, among others. Slimvirgin acted unethically by removing the discussion and simultaneously making changes that were contested in the discussion, but that's neither here nor there. Jav43 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what was deleted, but I do see that an archive was created at Talk:Factory_farming/Archive_1. What was deleted and where from? Having worked with SV quite a lot I would seriously doubt that she deleted discussion without very good reason. Also, the other 2 images show 1) sow stalls/gestation crates - which are described by a huge number of sources as being part of factory farming. 2) is of an indoor intensive chicken farm, also part of factory farming. Cows being fed in a shed is not specifically part of factory farming as it occurs in many other circumstances as I pointed out.-Localzuk(talk) 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The dairy cattle image *looks* like industrial agriculture - a number of cattle in limited space. The chicken image could not be "factory farming" just as easily as it might be factory farming - who is to say that there is not a blizzard raging outside?

Basically, what is important is what the images reflect. Where the photographs were taken is not nearly as important as the concept portrayed. These images portray the concept of industrial agriculture - which qualifies them for the article.

As for why Slimvirgin removed the discussion at the same time as changing the imagery? I don't know. Jav43 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The image of the cattle in the dairy farm is identifiable as a "factory farm" according to most usage. Whether the image misrepresents the farm in question is irrelevant. Jav43 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The 3 Rs
The Admin came to my wall over the potential three R breaking. You can read what was said there and on his talk page. As it shows, you can easily do refactoring. You do not have a right to achive other people's material against their will, but you can refactor. Furthermore, its not a Point violation because removing personal attacks or your own words is what Point is about. Finally, I only removed my own words, so you cannot so it cannot fall under "you that removing other people's comments should be avoide." But you reverted a post on the third time, which has entered into the 3R. Since it was originally my post, I did not count towards this until after the first count, which would include you in on it. If you go Here to Read the Discussion then you would see that there is no reason to keep any of it, even for fake "archiving" reasons, as you can always refactor and link to your history where it is stored. As it says in the editing page, removal of my text is the admittance of being wrong, however, you by putting it back up is saying that you were the one that is wrong, not I. Is that how you want it to be known? Especially when there is only half of a conversation? Remember the important rule, don't be a dick. Leaving stuff up there against my will is entering into such area. However, the other rule is not to be a dick because someone else is being a dick, so this will be my last message on the subject, as I have shown the desire the get over this and to remove offending material as per the Ettiquette rules. Thanks. SanchiTachi 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)