User talk:Crum375/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Factory farm

Please read the discussion page for "factory farming" re: lack of source for the sows image.Jav43 22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC) No, it doesn't. Look again. The only reference to "factory farming" is the url of the site the image comes from.Jav43 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Which image was not from a "factory farm"? Also, PLEASE stop removing all of my changes when it's only one change with which you disagree! Jav43 23:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I should hope that I am being civil here.

As for good faith? Yes, I begin with an assumption of good faith. I'm sorry if I drew the wrong interpretation from the chronological correlation between Slimvirgin's edits and your first edit. I assure you that my note to Slimvirgin was based upon my interpretation of events and not upon an assumption of bad faith.Jav43 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you and/or Slimvirgin would like to discuss this further in an easier-to-use forum, I would invite you to meet me in a random chatroom or via IM, either now or at a later date.Jav43 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When I wish to remark on someone's methods, I would prefer to address the person in a more private forum than the talk page for an article. It's extremely annoying that you continually remove all of my changes while only stating your disagreement with one change. Could you please rectify your most recent change to the "factory farming" article so that you only change whatever it is with which you disagree?Jav43 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken edit

Your last edit at Factory farming is mistaken. There is no broken link. Could you either revert it or join the conversation on the talk page as you reverted not a broken link but other edits being discussed on the talk page. Thanks. WAS 4.250 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming revert

Hi Crum375, I've asked for you to explain further your reason for reverting the factory farm article. Saying "it would seem to be" but then providing no extra information when there's an open discussion on each paragraph I've added: doesn't seem to be the most constructive approach to those edits. There's also no need to break up a revision to remove original research into separate updates just because you say so as you've undone two edits at any rate. Each paragraph has a discussion, so it can't get too much easier than that to identify which area you have issues with and we can discuss making further changes to my work: so if you agree that the additions make less O.R. (as per the issues listed) I'd ask that you undo your revert and discuss if you want to make further changes in the talk area.. As reverting with out reason is non constructive. Cheers. NathanLee 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the tag reverting on factory farming.

Crum: either come up with something in response to [1] or please refrain from reverting. This does not appear to be anything other than tag reverting against the evidence provided.. Please explain what new information makes the changes made by other to be "inconsistent" compared to the one that SV put up which has been exhaustively shown to be original research. NathanLee 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributions wanted - Factory farm article

Hi, can you please comment on here. This is to resolve the revert issues to unlock the page. cheers, NathanLee 16:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sprotected2

See here. I wasn't intending to delete sprotected2, I just think that a long-term template should be a redirect to a template that has been superseded. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA and attack sites

My reply was unclear, sorry for that. I do completely agree with the last part: There is no reason to ever link to such a site - if need be, the information can be emailed discretely to ArbComm or anyone else, on a need-to-know basis.

However, the line of argument that that attitude indicates no sensitivity to the plight of the attack victims, and is tantamount to attack in itself really stretches the definition of what an attack is, imo. You're basically saying that Gracenotes is violating policy. If that's really the case, I wonder why you don't block him instead of merely opposing his RfA. —AldeBaer 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. —AldeBaer 13:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes has clarified the answer to Q4

Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this kind of lobbying on talk pages is unseemly. You left a similar note with myself and other users. Also I think that your and another user trying to spin the discussion at the very top of the RfA is totally uncalled-for.--Mantanmoreland 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem

You may want to post at the AN/I section that the page has been protected, since some people might object. nadav (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. For some reason your attempt at protection isn't holding, and the battle for Jerusalem continues. Maybe there is a stronger method for safeguarding the page? Hertz1888 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection on New antisemitism

Could you please remove the page protection at New antisemitism? It's been in place for several weeks, and no longer seems to be serving a useful purpose. CJCurrie 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

While I have concluded, after discussion with others, that the message in question probably was not actually authored by SlimVirgin, your claim that it is a personal attack is out of line. And I'm getting rather tired of the harassment I see on my talk page every time one of you dislikes something I've said that might apply to you. Mangoe 17:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for removing the vandalism of my user page a few weeks ago by "Goldsmacker." I just stumbled upon it by accident.--Samiharris 02:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann

I thought you might want to know that, although he is still blocked, he is editing as an IP. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I must have been the first person in the history of Wikipedia to be blocked for what were believed to be 'uncivil' edit summaries. What a joke. --172.162.44.94 08:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)