| Revision as of 13:47, 22 November 2005 edit195.82.106.64 (talk) Vegan← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:57, 22 November 2005 edit undo195.82.106.64 (talk) →VeganNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| Hi | Hi | ||
| I am taking that environmental criticism out again until the contributor will engage in the debate which has spilled over his and the subject talk, and formulate a better one. | I am taking that environmental criticism out again until the contributor will engage in the debate which has spilled over his and the subject talk, and formulate a better one. If thers is a good environmental critique to be made, I am not adverse to it. I do think that it would be very difficult to make and the one that has been written is neither strong nor directly relevant to defining the topic. It might require a separate topic of its own. | ||
| ⚫ | I want to be clear much of my intention in reworking the topic along the line of the discussion is to keep it within Wiki guideline length. | ||
| There may be an environmental critique of vegetarian and vegan diets but using soya for livestock feed is not it. | |||
| Indeed, I would like to see it shorter yet. A lot of work has been put in to cut out the duplication, poor punctuation and flab. | |||
| ⚫ | I want to be clear much of my intention in reworking the topic along the line of the discussion is to keep it within Wiki guideline length |
||
| There may be an environmental critique of vegetarian and vegan diets but using soya intended for livestock feed as an example is not it. Neither is suggesting that livestock can be a replacement for rice growing when the argument excludes consideration of what that livestock is going to eat, the suitability of livestock onto specific fragile ecocultures and the pollution it causes itself which far outwiegh plant based pollution. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | The Wiki is after all an encyclopedia attempting to define a topic, in this case what is veganism, and not a discussion forum. | ||
| Idleguy, the gun loving warrior has a beef about this and is things are likely to get silly unless folks are willing to let things bed down a bit first. | Idleguy, the gun loving warrior has a beef about this and is things are likely to get silly unless folks are willing to let things bed down a bit first. | ||
| Thanks. User:anon 13:49, 22 November 2005 (GMT) | |||
| Thanks. | |||
Revision as of 13:57, 22 November 2005
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
Older messages are in /archive1, /archive2, /archive3, /archive4, /archive5, /archive6, /archive7, /archive8, /archive9
Picture of the day
Chartres Cathedral, also known as the Cathedral of Our Lady of Chartres, is a Catholic cathedral in Chartres, France, about 80 kilometres (50 miles) southwest of Paris. It is the seat of the bishop of Chartres. Mostly constructed between 1194 and 1220, it stands on the site of at least five cathedrals that have occupied the site since the Diocese of Chartres was formed as an episcopal see in the 4th century. It is one of the best-known and most influential examples of High Gothic and Classic Gothic architecture. Chartres Cathedral is known for its stained glass, and contains 167 stained-glass windows dating from the 12th century to the 20th century. This photograph shows the stained glass in the north transept of Chartres Cathedral. The rose window, which is 10.5 metres (34 feet) in diameter, was installed circa 1230 and contains imagery relating to the Virgin Mary and figures from the Old Testament. The presence of the coats of arms of King Louis IX and his mother Blanche of Castile are taken as a sign of royal patronage for this window. Below the rose are five lancet windows, each 7.5 metres (25 feet) tall, depicting Saint Anne and four Old Testament figures.Photograph credit: PtrQs
Archive – More featured pictures...
Jane Hunter
Jane recently resurfaced, but I do not have her current contact info. Try http://www.jewsonfirst.org/ or e-mail catcherSPAMBLOCK@JewsOnFirstSPAMBLOCK.org. --Cberlet 14:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Salvia
I deleted the reference to Salvia divinorum, as there was no reference to explain why an herb never found outside Mexico would be the soma of Eurasia. Did you intend to revert my edit? -SM 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
List of tropical cyclone names
I'm not try to vandalize the page. The 2005 Season is practially over, since names like Katrina and Rita will be retired, I'm putting the new names in for the 2011 list. I also fixed the name Henry because it was spelled wrong. I didn't know that was Your page (You prolly were watching it so that why You changed it back right away. 69.112.54.11
- That name list goes up to 2009. We know that names of major hurricanes are retired, and because lists are used again, I put the 2011 list. One of the names, Henry, was spelled wrong (with an I) and I fixed that. I didn't know that You owned the page and that You're not allowed to edit it. 69.112.54.11
- Please IM Me at . I don't know who the heck I'm talking to. Are You the webmaster? 69.112.54.11
- I've left you some information on your talk page. For your own security, please do not post your private, personal information, here. --Viriditas 10:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please IM Me at . I don't know who the heck I'm talking to. Are You the webmaster? 69.112.54.11
- I wouldn't get too worked about the vandal, Viriditas; he's obviously a troll. I can't imagine anyone is dense enough to think they can make up new hurricane names on their own for those that they feel will be retired. I made a post on the talk page for Lists of tropical cyclone names. Peyna 13:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Viridita, you might want to post a report about this matter on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -Willmcw 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Alfréd Haar article
Would you mind looking at the Alfréd Haar article? I suspect a vandal deleted the categories. No comments about why they were removed. I'm new enough that I just can't see a good reason for this to happen. The user is anon and only the one contribution. Thanks! Schmiteye 21:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I gave it some thought and decided it was vandalism after all. Still, could you review it? Thanks. Schmiteye 22:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Vegan
Hi
I am taking that environmental criticism out again until the contributor will engage in the debate which has spilled over his and the subject talk, and formulate a better one. If thers is a good environmental critique to be made, I am not adverse to it. I do think that it would be very difficult to make and the one that has been written is neither strong nor directly relevant to defining the topic. It might require a separate topic of its own.
I want to be clear much of my intention in reworking the topic along the line of the discussion is to keep it within Wiki guideline length.
Indeed, I would like to see it shorter yet. A lot of work has been put in to cut out the duplication, poor punctuation and flab.
There may be an environmental critique of vegetarian and vegan diets but using soya intended for livestock feed as an example is not it. Neither is suggesting that livestock can be a replacement for rice growing when the argument excludes consideration of what that livestock is going to eat, the suitability of livestock onto specific fragile ecocultures and the pollution it causes itself which far outwiegh plant based pollution.
The Wiki is after all an encyclopedia attempting to define a topic, in this case what is veganism, and not a discussion forum.
Idleguy, the gun loving warrior has a beef about this and is things are likely to get silly unless folks are willing to let things bed down a bit first.
Thanks. User:anon 13:49, 22 November 2005 (GMT)