User talk:Canaen/Nonsense

I've created this page in the spirit of "I may not agree with what you have say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This page is for dated nonsense which I don't particularly want to look over repeatedly. Chances are, it's not worth reading.

No personal attacks

I find you have indulged in personal attacks calling "Ignorance of Idleguy" etc. on edit summaries and talk pages. Your associate - anon with IP address starting in the 64.105... range has also tried this snide personal remarks and using an offensive username. I request you to stop this and be more helpful in improving the encyclopedia and not remove outright sections just because you are unable to come to terms with the facts. Tx Idleguy 08:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. The word "Ignorance" simply refers to a lack of knowledge, not a lack of capacity. I have no associates on Wikipedia; if another user decided that your edits are incorrect, or otherwise flawed, so be it -- but they have nothing to do with me. I do agree with you, however, that said anon with said IP address has been rather offensive towards yourself. If you would listen to anything that I say, you would know that I want you to clarify your facts. In no way is the amount of water used for Rice Cultivation a criticism of Veganism. You facts may be accurate, but they are entirely out of place. As has been mentioned, if you have a problem with Soy Bean or Rice Cultivation, put it on a relevant page. Canaen 08:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that you have attacked Idleguy as well. Let's keep WP:CIV in mind and try to get along. Criticize the article, not the editors. --Viriditas 08:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but to me, Ignorance is something to be remedied, not something to gripe about. I am not calling him Stupid, or Incompetent, simply Ignorant, because I sincerely believe that he does not have the information to be editing the article. He will not defend himself, and simply puts back the same irrelevent information. I criticized the article; however, no one would oppose the criticisms. Thus, the information was removed. Canaen 08:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You admit you are violating WP:NPA. Please review the policy. Criticize the edits, not the editor. This is a very simple concept, so I don't see what the problem is here. --Viriditas 08:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I admit nothing of the sort. I have reviewed the policy. I have tried to discuss the facts, but no one else has attempted to make a rebuttal. Idleguy's information does not belong where he places it. Canaen 09:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Stick to the facts. Any further attacks on Idleguy will result in blockings. Thank you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about facts. Please explain. Let me state once and for all, that when I use the term ignorant, I do not make an attack. It is simple constructive criticism, which I would expect anyone to give me. Canaen 09:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You write, "I am not calling him [Idleguy] Stupid, or Incompetent, simply Ignorant." In an edit summary you wrote, "Fixing Ignorance of Idleguy". On a talk page you also wrote, "You simply seem to have a lack of comprehension." These are negative personal comments, aka personal attacks. Please address the content instead of the editor. You've also violated WP:3RR on Veganism (I count six reverts in less than 24 hours as of this edit) so please review that policy as well. Coincidentally, various anonymous accounts have been harassing Idleguy on the same page (see WP:HA), signing their comments with names like Idleguyspal and Anti-Idleguy. It might be best if you just take a break and avoid that article for a while. --Viriditas 09:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE ADDRESSED THE CONTENT. NO SUPPORTER OF CONTENT WILL DEFEND IT IN WORDS. Stop telling me to do what I've already done. They simply revert, over and over and over again. If you would stop with your damned accusations, then you will notice that I have said nothing new in all of this discussing; I have simply been trying to get any supporter of the information to speak out and defend their actions of reverting. Idleguy has breached 3RR as well, so if you wish to report me, I suggest you apply the law equally. I sincerely hope that by mentioning these other anonymous names that you do not mean to implicate me. I am honest, if nothing else. I sign everything I write with my name (of course, not actual article content). Getting your Wikifriends to gang up against me will do you no good. I simply do not see the relevance of Criticising Rice and Soy Bean Cultivation on a page about Veganism. I do not know what you are trying to accomplish; maybe if you tell me, we can settle this sooner. Canaen 09:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above. I think you really need to review NPOV as it appears you are attempting to limit the article to one POV. The criticism directly addresses claims made in the article, particularly those made about the relationship between veganism and environmental damage. --Viriditas 10:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, nothing in the Environmental Criticism section addressed, directly or indirectly, anything in the Environmental Considerations section, let alone the rest of the article. Did the Environmental Considerations section claim that either Rice or Soy Bean cultivation were beneficial to the environment? I'm sorry that you think I am trying to promote a single point of view. I do not agree. Canaen 08:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "nonsense" page

If you are interested in archiving your old talk, you may want to review Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Accusing other editors of "defacing" your talk page for politely reminding you of Wikipedia policies against personal attacks does not demonstrate good faith on your part, and will only make you look bad. I suggest you move the archive to a more appropriate name like User talk:Canaen/archive1. Furthermore, making negative comments about discussion by other editors, and claiming that their edits "are not worth reading" shows that you aren't interested in abiding by WP:NPA, WP:CIV, nor WP:EQ. If you want to improve your working relationship with other editors, it might help to avoid incivility. --Viriditas 06:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in archiving my old talk as of yet, but thank you for the suggestion. I use "nonsense" in a lot of ways other people do not, because I find a lot of other words to be boring at present. Likewise, instead of "cool," or "awesome," or "that's interesting," I'm currently in the habit of referring to things as "nifty." It's something I do. I know how to archive a talk page, I've done it before. I still do not consider suggesting ignorance to be a personal attack, because I've grown up in a rather intellectual atmosphere. I'm not going to change just because a few people are offended at my words. I thought that this was resolved by now. I have quite decent relationships with other working editors; it seems that a particular user and myself simply do not get along. It is regretful, but something which seems to be. If someone takes offence to my creation of a Nonsense page, they can bring it up to me personally, as you have done, and I will explain. That's another thing that I do. My other option would be to straight-out delete your "reminders of policy," just like another particular user has done with mine in the past. I think you know why I don't do that. When all is said and done, it's my talk page, and I'll do what I like with it. Canaen 07:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you have avoided my point. Other editors (including myself) may perceive your comments as petty attacks. Your response seems to show that you just don't care about civility or treating other editors with a modicum of respect. The edits in question most certainly did not "deface" your talk page, nor could they be considered nonsense in the true definition of the word. Describing the discussion as "worthless" comes close to violating the spirit of WP:NPA. While I don't think you are directly making a serious personal attack in this instance, you cannot use your talk page to attack other editors. Again, please read WP:CIV. --Viriditas 07:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not avoided your point. Other editors may percieve all they wish, but if they're not willing to bring it up to me, then it isn't serious enough to be dealt with. Generally, I don't retain high levels of respect for people who simply percieve without making sure of things. I believe I explained the labelling of "nonsense" -- it's akin to miscellaneous in its current usage on this page. Language is a living, fluid thing; especially where I come from, you can't tie things down to set defenitions -- it's all about context. I didn't say that the content of the page was worthless -- simply that it was probably not worth reading, since it is irrelevant by now, and probably doesn't have anything to do with the reader. I still do not view anything on that page as a reminder of policy. I view this as a better solution than "Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages" as suggested by WP:CIV. I have left all words undifferenced, and simply moved them to a place where I do not have to see them when I'm looking for a new message. They simply aren't serving any purpose for me.

My talk page essentially serves as a tool for others to leave me messages, whatever they may be. It's much easier for me to not only get the messages faster, but to respond to them civilly and cooly if I do not have to review certain discussions that do naught but aggrivate me. Canaen 08:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User conduct RFC

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)

Thank you for the link. I'll probably have time to get to it later tonight. Canaen 04:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I notice Skinwalker edited this off your discussion page and so I am adding it back in.

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."

195.82.106.78 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Last warning

I've repeatedly asked you to stop referring to my comments as nonsense, to stop claiming that I am "defacing" your talk page, and to stop labeling my comments as worthless. You haven't stopped doing this, and your latest message on my talk page shows that you intend to keep doing it. I'm going to give you one more chance. Remove the header from this page, move the "nonsense" archive to something like /archive1, and stop attacking me on my talk page. Until that time, any further attacks on my talk page will be removed immediately. --Viriditas 11:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

By "Nonsense," I meant to refer to "My Nonsense Page." I don't know why you're being so aggressive (no, that's not an attack; that's the feeling I get from you), but I'm not trying to attack you. I want to resolve this. I organize things; that doesn't mean that I'm assigning worth to your comments. Please explain how the following is an attack:

"I've finally gotten around to cleaning up the interactive sections of my User pages. I've reviewed your comments, and yes, they were constructive criticism. The only section not removed from my Nonsense page was your section directly related, which I though was more relevant there. See my talk page for further detail."

Simply because I use a tool differently than you do is no reason to attack. Your section about my "Nonsense" page is obviously most relevant on the page itself. That's not an attack -- that's saying that related things should be viewed together. I truly do appreciate your constructive criticism. When I re-read them, I found that you seemed to be trying hard to keep a neutral tone, which I respect. Again, I'm not trying to attack you, however that doesn't mean I'm going to follow orders. I don't think that you would either, under threats like these. Canaen 11:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Some vegans

Regarding your comment and edit, some vegans exclude crops that they didn't grow/harvest themselves, or gather naturally, for this reason. Some vegans do this and some vegans do that, but we are mainly discussing veganism in general. If you have a specific reference for the type of vegan you are referring to (such as naming an established splinter group or style) then by all means include it. Otherwise changing the content to "most vegans" isn't very helpful, and doesn't read as well as the previous text. We can make exceptions to just about everything, but unless they are notable (and can be specified), we should stick with the general definition. It's obvious that the type of vegans you are referring to are not representative of the group. --Viriditas 23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we are discussing Vegans in general. The general definition, if you'll note, is a "philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Grains which involve death as such are not Vegan, plain and simple. However, many Vegans still consume such grains (this goes beyond grains; grains are just an example). Vegans vary widely; Many comsume refined Cane Sugar, which isn't Vegan. Almost all also consume Molasses, Vinegar, and Maple Syrup, almost all of which that is commercially available use various animal products in their processing. This applies to many alcholoic drinks as well. "as far as is possible and practical" is interpreted in widely different manners, and this should be noted. Different vegans take different measures. It's just how it works. You can't split Vegans, as a whole, into different splinter groups. We don't work like that. There are far too many personal differences between us. Canaen 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please quantify and substantiate the statement, "some vegans exclude crops that they didn't grow/harvest themselves, or gather naturally, for this reason." I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are referring to when you say "there are far too many personal differences between us". We are talking about Veganism, the article. --Viriditas 23:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You know that I cannot do that. There aren't enough studies going on, people just aren't interested enough (on a scientific-ish level). I know of at least one farm in Northern California (Marin County) where this is true. If you ask any vegan, they will tell you that any process which casues suffering is not a Vegan process. It isn't acceptable as Vegan, even though many vegans do accept it as something they can't get around in this modern life. Canaen 23:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a vegan, so I don't see any reason to ask one. We have a strict policy on Wikipedia regarding verifiability. If some vegans exclude crops that they don't harvest themselves then it should be easy for you to source that statement and incorporate it into the article. --Viriditas 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that we do. However, not many news sources are interested in such things. I can do a survey of a potentially a few hundred vegans and find out, but I think that such a thing would qualify as original research. To say that killing is acceptable to the vegan diet is simply a flat-out lie. Canaen 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely, killing is acceptable to the vegan diet, otherwise one would die of starvation. All food production involves "killing" of some kind or another. --Viriditas 23:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. This is why, in the interest of Ahimsa, some Jains and other Vegans starve themselves to death. Killing in Vegan terminology does not apply to plants. Please do not quibble; it gets neither of us anywhere. It's not a vegan thing to kill an animal, or to cause suffering, even though most vegans decide that they just don't care enough, or know how to avoid it.Canaen 23:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How many Jains and "other vegans" starve themselves to death? Do you have actual numbers and names? Again, killing is acceptable to the vegan diet; it's how vegans survive. See the ethical criticism section of veganism for more information, paying special attention to the principle of "least harm" referenced in the external link. --Viriditas 23:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, congratulations for actually entering into conversation Viriditas. " Vegan " is not a fixed point or destination, it is journey. It is not an element but a transmutation. It is, e.g., perfectly possible to cut a field of grain or soya without killing vole and sustain human life on it. Just do it by hand. Killing may be ' inevitable ', even ' accepted ' but is not definitive of vegan nor ' acceptable '. It is a question of intent. Vegans are not going out with intent to kill as meat eaters, they are going out with intent not to kill. Murder versus manslaughter versus accidental death. There is a difference. Ultimately, it would be possible to live without killing at least down to a bacterial level, only a few orthodox Jains make that though. It just that at present, we are all lazy, selfish, bad or transitional vegans.

Mid WikiWar, I was quite tempted to put up a page for " orthodox vegans ", having the same relationship to secular " killing " vegans as say Hassidics to secular Jews. who is your friend Skinwalker?

195.82.106.14 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[ the non-Canaen's meatpuppet man ] As a vegan that has actually lived on a mixed use farm, I can testify to how quickly rodents can shift.

Viriditas, the point is that Vegans aspire to withdraw support of suffering in all ways shapes and forms. That is the ultimate goal. Different Vegans go to different lengths for this, and you cannot damn them all by saying taht killing is "acceptable to the Vegan diet." You're giving the impression that we think it's ok; we don't. Yes, it should be mentioned that animals are killed in modern production of grains and other crops. However, it should not be worded as that sentence which you reverted the information to. You are misleading the reader. Canaen 05:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't "damned" anyone. The fact is, killing as a result of crop production is acceptable to vegans, otherwise they would not be able to eat. Please don't lecture me about some guy who survives by eating the apples that fall off trees, or a monk who has starved himself to death. Again, I refer you to the least harm principle. I don't know what sentence you are referring to above, but I can state with certainty that I haven't misled anyone, nor have you shown that anyone has been misled. You may want to consult the NPOV policy. If you feel like posting the sentence and showing why you think it is misleading, that would certainly help me to undertand your point, otherwise I feel you are attempting to remove content and criticism you dislike. I encourage you to expand Gaverick Matheny's argument, and to find other reputable critics who agree with him and add them to the section. For balance, I added PETA's counter-claim, but I was unable to find a reputable source other than a message board. You may be interested in contacting PETA or finding a good link for it. --Viriditas 13:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I, a Vegan, right now, am saying that no, intensive, industrial crop harvesting, which kills anything, is not acceptable. It is not a Vegan act, as it causes suffering. It is quite possible to harvest by hand, or to live on wild land without agriculture at all. Many people who consider themselves Vegans just don't care enough to grow food themselves to avoid this, or, primarily, don't even know about it. At the moment, the sentence you were reverting to is gone. .

My main issue here was your use of the term "acceptable." Please note, the Wikitionary defentitions (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Acceptable):

1. Capable, worthy, or sure of being accepted or received with pleasure; pleasing to a receiver; gratifying; agreeable; welcome; as, an acceptable present, one acceptable to us.

2. Barely worthy, less than excellent;

The first is most definitely a flat-out lie. Even claiming that the act has any worth at all (number 2) is not truth. It is something that most Vegans in the industrialized world live with, but not something that pleases them, and something that many would like to see stopped. Canaen 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We are both vegans, and that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, so please stop bringing that up. I am not going to argue with you about the definition of "acceptable", as that is silly, and it looks like you've posted a straw man argument in relation to it. Nobody has said that it is impossible to use other methods of production. You claim the sentence I was reverting to is gone, so I have no idea what you were referring to, or if I'm the editor you should be arguing with at this time. You would do well to heed my suggestion about expanding Gaverick Matheny's response to Davis, as well as contacting PETA to get a good link to their claim. --Viriditas 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You also omit to consider that a lot of vegans have not actually stopped to realise it is happening, especially young ones that are just wrestling with the basics. Personally, to be honest, as there was no intent to kill on my behalf it is not an area that I had stopped to consider. You might as well take a line that vegans ought not drive, take buses or trains, or food that has been transported because it kills bugs. To a degree it is true.

Perhaps, it you want to be pedantic, you ought to state ... " are "forced to accomodate" by living in the develop world / cities ".

That is still not the same as acceptable. We are still moving towards the goal and not at it yet and big priorities exist.

You only speak for yourself Viriditas. You can say, " I as a vegan ... ", " my interpretation of vegan is ... " but not make outright statements. And frankly, given the aggressive, erroneous and accusatory showing you made in the last few, how you are willing to use the Wikitricks, your interpretation of what is Wiki NPOV and how to go about on the Wiki has been brought into question.

Frankly, I would find it hard to believe that you are vegan at all the agenda you are trying to drive. Why not just start your own website rather than commandeer the vegan Wiki topic?195.82.106.127 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was discussing these issues with Canaen, not with you. Frankly, your entire edit history (under the many IP's and sock accounts you have used) consists of nothing but trolling, personal attacks, vandalism, edit warring, and POV edits. The accusations that you levy at me are made to distract away from the topic under discussion and in fact apply to you, not me. I do not "speak" for myself, which is why I've asked Canaen to stop bringing his personal beliefs into this discussion. I suggest you read WP:NOT. If you are trying to make vegans look bad, you are doing a good job. --Viriditas 05:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, there's nothing wrong with others joining into a discussion. Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith as well. Canaen 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The anon in question is not representative of "others". This user has engaged in vandalism, personal attacks, and trolling. Good faith is not required or demanded in such instances. Please review the relevant policies. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring." --Viriditas 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Shall I refuse to assume good faith on your part, then? Canaen 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user in question has engaged in vandalism, personal attacks and edit warring. On Talk:Veganism you have gone so far as to deny that the anonymous user is the same user, whereas the IP he/she is currently posting from has been associated with the "Mitsu" account, linking all the IPs as one user. If you choose to "refuse" to assume good faith on my part, then your refusal would be in bad faith, as I have not given you any reason not to assume good faith. The fact that you have not distanced yourself from this user and his bad behavior leads me to believe that you don't have a problem with vandalism and personal attacks. --Viriditas 03:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And writing about vegetarianism on the topic of veganism makes sense ... we dediced not to allow that sometime ago.

You are wrong Viriditas. Do you honestly think that you hold the objective truth of veganism?

You seem to think that you can suppress, intimidate and insult your way to WikiVictory with your own agenda. It is not working. Every body else is a POV, you are absolutely correct? its just a FUD attack

Climb off your high horse and engage in the discussion work to consensus. At worst, I am holding up a mirror for you to look at yourself in.

So what sort of vegan are you? I find it hard to believe by the agenda you are driving. So what is it? --Comment made by 212.18.228.53

I do not omit this: "or, primarily, [Vegans] don't even know about it." As far as bringing my personal beliefs into the matter, I am simply saying this: Industrial harvesting of crops can cause suffering in the form of killing field mice and other small creatures. This is something that I think we both agree on.

Now, read the Vegan Society's defenition of Veganism once more: "philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Is suffering acceptable to all Vegans? To any at all? Canaen 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Crop production in its current form, which supplies the majority of vegan food, causes suffering to other animals. This is acceptable to most vegans, and Gaverick Matheny even justifies this killing by claiming that the pain of the mouse is not as great as the pain of a cow. If vegetarianism causes the least harm, in terms of animal suffering, compared to any system of animal agriculture, then such suffering is acceptable to vegans. --Viriditas 00:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't, for the accepted defenition of says that causing suffering is not a vegan act. Regardless of what you do or believe, causing suffering is not a vegan act, plain and simple. "Acceptable" is not the correct term to use here. As mentioned by one of the anonymous IPs above, "forced to accomodate might be better. Someone else has fixed this matter already, so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. I believe that anything which causes suffering is not Vegan, as do many other Vegans. If you want to argue that Vegan-to-Vegan, I'd be happy to. However, IRC would be a better place for such a thing. This is just starting to clutter my talk page. Canaen 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Suffering is unavoidable (See also the Buddhist perspective: "All of life involves dukkha"). I think you are confusing the ethical objections to Veganism with what you personally believe Veganism is or isn't. We are talking about minimizing suffering, as you cannot entirely eliminate it. According to Davis: "In 1999, I sent an email to Regan...I asked him, "What is the morally relevant difference between the animals of the field and those of the farm that makes it acceptable to kill some of them (field mice, etc.) so that humans may eat, but not acceptable to kill others (pigs, etc.) so we may eat?" His reply (Regan, 1999, personal communication) was that we must choose the method of food production that causes the least harm to animals....In his book, Regan (1983) calls this the "minimize harm principle" and he describes it in the following way: "Whenever we find ourselves in a situation where all the options at hand will produce some harm to those who are innocent, we must choose that option that will result in the least total sum of harm." (From Davis S.L. (2003) "The least harm principle may require that humans consume a diet containing large herbivores, not a vegan diet". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. (16)4. pp. 387-394.). --Viriditas 03:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And I think you are doing the same. Veganism is not a set thing. All the beliefs aren't written down in a 1,400 year-old book to be largely ignored. We decide things for ourselves, and with discussion with friends. You cannot assume that your beliefs are those of every Vegan, ir the "propper" vegan set of beliefs.

"we must choose the method of food production that causes the least harm to animals..."

I agree. We would do much less harm to animals if we all gave up industrial society and lived off of permaculture plots. We all have the choice, if we really want, to stop causing harm to others. We just don't think about it enough. If you're trying to convince me personally that intensive agriculture is ok, you're not going to succede; I know what it does to my planet. If you're arguing to put your words back on the page, I suggest that you move this to the relevent article's talk page. Canaen 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not discussed my beliefs on Wikipedia at any time, nor are they relevant. You, on the other hand, continue to appeal to your beliefs ("we would do much less harm to animals if we all gave up industrial society and lived off of permaculture plots") which are not helpful in the development of an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should review the NPOV policy, and attempt to ascribe your beliefs to reputable proponents--and in fact I've encouraged you to do so with no response on your end. I am not a proponent of intensive agriculture production, nor do I know where you get that idea. Tom Regan (as quoted by Davis) is arguing just the opposite. I have no idea what you are referring to when you say I am arguing to "put your words back on the page". I've already asked you to point to the sentence you claim I was reverting to, but I don't recall you ever having done so. If you have a specific problem with a particular edit, please link to it. Your argument that veganism is "not a set thing" allows you to move the goalposts at will, and is not helpful to this discussion. --Viriditas 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

New templates

I don't know if you're into userboxes, but if you are, I've created some in which you might be interested. {{user vegan}} and {{user Anarchist}} Daykart 10:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I have quite a few on my page. I think I shall have to make a subpage soon... Thanks! they look great. Canaen 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm pretty new to creating templates myself, I based it off the anarchosyndicalist userbox. I decided to stick with red because I identify myself am an anarcho-communist (with a bit of anarcho-enviromentalist and anarcha-feminist thrown into the mix to spice things up). I have no issue if anyone wishes to change it, though. Daykart 13:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Mmk. I should learn how to do that... Canaen 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved comments from Talk:Veganism (has nothing to do with Veganism)

And to address Canaen's comment that I "stop assuming that every anonymous IP is the same person", the user in question, namely 212.18.228.53 has been directly linked to the anonymous IP's (particularly Mitsu (talk • contribs) and 195.82.106.78 (talk • contribs)). See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Canaen for more evidence. Canaen is aware of this information, so I'm unclear as to why he is protecting 212.18.228.53 when that account has been shown to be using the same ISP as the other IP's, namely Mailbox Internet Ltd., from dynamic.mailbox.co.uk. Perhaps Canaen feels that vandalism and personal attacks are acceptable, but Wikipedia policies say otherwise. --Viriditas 03:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Viriditas, what information am I aware of? Because I've heard nothing of the sort. My unwillingness to persecute those which I do not know does not mean that I'm protecting them. After I commented on Skinwalker's claims against me, I pretty much forgot about that thing. It's has little to do with me, and its title is not apt. I've now read the dicussion page where the IPs are supposedly linked together, but I don't quite see how it is entirely relevant. Please stop this nonsense.

"Perhaps Canaen feels that vandalism and personal attacks are acceptable, but Wikipedia policies say otherwise."

Why do you continually say things like this? It doesn't get either of us anywhere. Don't try to justify it, just stop. If you force me to waste time in such large quantities as you and Skinwalker did with that "RfC" by hunting down all of your little attacks and breeches of policy [3], I shall be very cross indeed, and it will be damned thorough. Let's just get on with the article already. Canaen 04:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The link you proffer actually demonstrates you trolling my talk page. It does not show an attack of any kind. I politely asked you a number of times on your own talk page not to refer to my comments as nonsense, [4] and you responded on my talk page not with an apology, but to tell me that you still thought my comments were nonsense and would be categorized as such. You are well informed of the behavior of the anonymous contributor (as described on your RFC and many talk pages) and yet you wrote, "I suggest you stop assuming that every anonymous IP is the same person". Indeed, the anonymous IP in question was listed on your RFC prior to its comments, so one wonders why we shouldn't assume it is the same person. By your own comments above, your behavior on your talk page, and your continuing defense of an anonymous vandall/attacker/troll, it does indeed seem that vandalism and personal attacks are acceptable to you. If they weren't, you would make every effort to distance yourself from this user, yet even today, you encouraged this user to continue its behavior on your very talk page. [5] You even went so far as to ask me to assume good faith--a ridiculous notion, which the guideline itself does not require in the presence of evidence to the contrary. --Viriditas 07:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I can apply near all of the above to you as well. Don't assume that I've read through that "RfC"; I read what applied to me, commented, and pretty much left it alone. I don't pay attention the the anonymous IPs, for the most part. When I do, it's because they've said that they have a problem with you, or Skinwalker, or Idelguy. Let's just get on with our lives already. Canaen 04:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"removed personal attack against Lord Huntly, He suffer enough at Hill of Fare"

• for reference to the above, see Viriditas's witchhunt against you where he lists me removing your joke about Lord Huntly as a your crime !!!

Do you see the way you work Viriditas? It is perfectly transparent to third parties. All the time you use hysteric exaggerations, insults and negative personal abuse; "vandall ... attacker ... troll ... POV ... sockpuppet ... meatpuppet ... harrass" in an attempt to discredit others. It just a " throw enough shit and some of it will stick " strategy.

• Would vegans really insult one another " Mr. Meatpuppet " as you did to me? I don't believe you are a vegan at all.

You contributed to a trumped up, erroneous and dishonest RfC against Canaen and even conspired to attempt to damage his wish to become an admin on the basis of that erroneous and dishonest charges. Even when I made clear written " confession " documenting IP addresses to an admin, you still insisted to drive in that I was Canaen. Have you withdrawn the allegations?

Now you try to drive in that he is defending or encouraging me, which he is not and I would not expect him to, and try and divide us as reasonable and earnest vegan co-contributors. Divide, and rule the topic? D you really expect Canaen to bow you to?

Look at your language Viriditas; " Perhaps Canaen feels that vandalism and personal attacks are acceptable ". Who are you talking to? Canaen or some imaginary audience watching you strip Canaen down? Look at your desperate attempts to stop others reading the facts of how you behave towards others by acting as self-elected censor.

Look at how you try to discredit Canaen by rabidly listing entirely unassociated activity with him. This is a pervert Witch hunt, it is like what the Nazis did to Jews. It is ridiculous. You chose to sit their on your computer and libel and sustain a libel against Canaen even when you know it is not true.195.82.106.69 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What witchhunt? I've been gone awhile. I'd like to see that bit. Canaen 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate content in your user page

You have a link to a wikipedia article about whites from the phrase "like y'all cracker asses,". This is racist and not appropriate for Wikipedia.-Crunchy Numbers 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. "White" is not a race any more than "Black," "Pacific Islander," "Native American," or "Hispanic of non-Europena descent." Terms like these serve no good in the world. I am a Celt, I am a Gael, I am a Scot. I am not a "white." "White" has become analogous to Germanic, and even to Anglo-Saxon. Not all Northern Europeans are Germanic. I take offence when folks call me "white," as I find it not only derogatory, but generalizing, as well as an attempt to further-remove me from thousands of years of heritage behind me. I choose to express this in the words of a friend of mine.

Wikipedia has no policy on Censorship that I am aware of, and the very nature of the matter makes it seem unlikely that any such proposed policy will ever gain community consensus. There have been several tries already. If you would like, I will further explain my reasoning for displaying such things on my User page, but it remains my decision. I am happy to address any concerns you may have, but I will not be bossed around. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I first saw this some time ago and let it slide until I saw it again yesterday so I am not out to start something at the drop of a hat. I didn't tell you what to do so I'm not bossing you.

You speak of problems in the UK but the words of your friend speak of "Racist Amerikka".

Even if white weren't a race in "Racist Amerikka" it is a group of people and by linking to the article about them you are saying this is what you consider them. Would it be ok for someone to link the word idiot or thief to a wikipedia article about blacks? I don't think so. You seem to be saying its ok to generalize about whites with derogatory statements because some whites or some group is trying to include you against your will in this group.

I don't know every Wikipedia policy but I do remember in the guidelines about user pages it mentions that the content should be about editing wikipedia articles and non-related or material should go on a homepage outside wikipedia.-Crunchy Numbers 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I speak of global problems. But I doubt that's what you're after. Look. Lynx is referring to Middle Class White people, who're blamed for a hell of a lot in Anti-Racism over here in the States. Not because of their race, but because of their social status, as masters of everyone else. Middle Class "Blacks," "Reds," and "Browns" are just as capable of taking on the same qualities of "cracker asses." It's Classist, yes. Yes, it is distinguishing on ethnic and class ground. But holding on to heritage is not Racism. Pride, maybe, but not Racism.

Would you prefer that I wrote "cracker asses (whites)? Or ignore the fact that "Cracker" is used as a racial slur? Should we just forget about words like Darky, Cracker, Buck & Squaw? No. Wikipedia's policies, even with community consensus, are not laws. They are suggestions, which should probably be followed, in general terms. I'm using this lyrical quote in order to portray my position on who I am, and where my bias may lie (so that others may bring it to my attention if I do not), as well as relate my interest in Gaelic studies. So, if there's a problem over at Gaels, and people look around for folks interested in such things, they might stumble upon me, and say "hey, you might care about this." I find it constructive. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't clear from your side of the Atlantic, but cracker is the most offensive blanket epithet for white people in North America and the addition of ass to any phrase enhances its vulgarity. Racist is a hot button word that means different things to different people and usually degenerates the level of a discussion. If you want people to respect your wishes about your own identity, you aren't likely to make progress by insulting an entire group in one of the most objectionable ways possible. Durova 15:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

North America is my side of the Atlantic, actually. California. Thank you for your input. I really think that time could be better spent writing this Encyclopedia than bickering over an uninvolved rapper's choice of words. I respect your thoughts, opinions, and positions. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you respected anyone’s thoughts, opinions, or positions you wouldn’t have used the word bickering to describe our thoughts, opinions, and positions. And here’s a gem ”bickering over an uninvolved rapper's choice of words”. No, we are pointing out material on your user page. Did your “friend” add the link to whites? How would it be if someone posted the script to the movie Trainspotting (film) and linked all references to heroin addicts to the article about scottish people? I could go around saying I’m friends with the guy who wrote the novel therefore I can put whatever I want on my user page.

Your rants sound like Eminem songs when he talks about Dr Dre. He doesn’t have anything to say or think other than what Dr Dre told him to say and think. At least Eminem doesn't keep saying that Dr Dre is his friend.-Crunchy Numbers 16:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Heroin addiction is quite a prevalent problem in Scotland. It's something which should be called attention to. If you identify as "white," I'm sorry that you find offence in these words. I don't identify as "white," though many refer to me as such. I think such broad generalization simply serve to further subjugate rich cultural traditions. I'm not quite sure what you mean by talking about Eminem; I don't know much about him. I find sexist, homophobic, and otherwise oppressive rapping to be rather disgusting.

Could I get a clear and precise complaint? Somewhat of a summary, from one or all of you? If not, that's fine, but it would help, at least from my end, in resolving this. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly white (I do have 1/4 Mexican heritage though, but I look totally Anglo). I come from a long line of white crackers actually: Nathaniel Bacon, John Smith, Oliver Ellsworth and other assorted Indian abusers, colonizers, and slavers. Not to mention my dad was a local leader in the Aryan Brotherhood (despite being half-Mexican, but like me he doesn't look it). And no, I have no contact with that jerk and I don't want any. Anyway, I don't take any offense to that, I like Emcee Lynx actually. Don't take things so seriously. And Lynx realizes that there are plenty of fine crackers out there. It's just a song for goodness sakes. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)