We just had an anon changed the intros in 3 headings, add my signature to their view (which I do not endorse), etc. This is considered vandalism. Please do not do this or else you are liable to be blocked. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This from Canaen: "I don't know what Skinwalker means to say that I opposed the content. It appeared to me that Idleguy had misinterpreted an FAO study (especially since a more recent study contradicted his interpretation, and I changed the opening line of a paragraph citing the older study, while adding the newer one [45]. I don't see how anyone can view this negatively, especially since my wording is still in place as I write this."

Just a note. I've never misinterepreted any FAO study. As anyone can see the current cite merely states "one of the main reasons" which is a broad term used by FAO and others. The statistics provided by them and the exact order of the "main reasons" lists agriculture/logging as amongst the top reasons (amongst the main reasons). The current presentation would have one believe that it is the top priority as it is mentioned first in the para. However I do not have enough time for Wikipedia editing and therefore it has remained so though I'd be glad to thrash out a compromise. Idleguy 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The FAO, and many other organizations, include both the Meat and Dairy industries, or any instance of domesticated animals (Livestock) in the term "Agriculture." Go look up the word. You were making the article seem as if this were not true, and that the FAO excluded Cattle raising from the term, most notably by your reverting to the term "however." As well, in your post above, you make Agriculture and Logging seem as a single cause; this is not the case. Though you may very well be doing this on accident, I ask that you be much more cautious in your quoting of sources. As for priority, I was using a newer FAO report (from July of this year, 2005), which did list Cattle raising as a top priority. They were two different sources, another thing which you didn't appear to recognize. I posted similarly on the talk page of the article, and got no response from you. Canaen 03:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requested on registered accounts listed in sockpuppet section plus subject of RfC. --Viriditas 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canaen wrote: Even though Donald's comment was directly below Josephine's, it was not to her. It was a response directly to Johnny. Go back and look at the page, Skinwalker. I was telling a Brasilian, who commented that she her English was not fit for writing in the wikipedia, that she should none-the-less add the info to the talk page, and ask that someone clean it up. This is standard Wikipedia policy, except that in most cases, it is suggested that the user add directly to the main article.

Could you point out where she claims to be Brasilian? Her profile describes her as an ex-pat Briton who lives in New Jersey, and her English is perfect. [1] Please correct me, here. In the context of your orginal comment on the blog, it appeared that you were asking her to pretend to be Brasilian to give greater weight to content related to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' report on cattle ranching in Latin America. [2] --Viriditas 09:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cannot, because Vgnwtch is not the user I was commenting to. I can, however, point this line out, from the Brasilian of which I speak:

"as a well informed person who happens to be vegan mostly for environmental reasons and live in brasil, i can say for sure most of the amazonian deforestation comes from cattle farming, to make pasture. also, we know that even the soybean farming is directly linked to the cattle farming. i don't have numbers, but i know more than half of our production goes to cattle food, and most of it is exported.

also, i think it may be important to say that half of the slave work found in brasil comes from the cattle farming. most of it are poor people recruited to 'clean' the forests for pastures."

Her username is danimoreira, and her userinfo states that she is from :são paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. She speaks Portugese, for the most part. Thank you for your interest though, Viriditas Canaen 03:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me. I will remove that allegation from the RfC, as well as from another talk page. --Viriditas 03:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following are ISP code that are named in the RfC. Net ranges are provided were a series of codes were in close approximate number. OnceBitten 21:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

64.105.20.237 OrgName: Covad Communications OrgID: CVAD Address: 2510 Zanker Rd. City: San Jose StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95131 Country: US

84.64.121.200 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL

85.195.123.22 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL

195.82.106.12 Record Type:IP Address OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43 NetRange: 195.0.0.0 - 195.255.255.255

212.18.224.118 Record Type:IP Address OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43 NetRange: 212.0.0.0 - 212.255.255.255

217.147.85.6 Record Type: IP Address OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43 NetRange: 217.0.0.0 - 217.255.255.255

OnceBitten 21:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this page because it is a knowingly erroneous and dishonest libel of a Wiki user setting out to deliberately damage - and silence - a contributor to a topic by one particular opposing contributor, Viriditas, supported by two allies one of whoms constant nonconsensual revisions led to his contribution being moved off the page by consensus. The article is on veganism. Veganism is a provocative challenge to many individuals, as is vegetarianism to a lesser degree because it makes individuals and animal industries look at themselves. It regularly attracts fanatics, trolls, propagandists of boths sides. The libel of Canaen was started by Viriditas's associate Skinwalker based on the erroneous claim that I was at first Canaen using various anonynous IP address. Even when I wrote and made it clear to admins, even stating IP address, Viriditas associate Skinwalker continued to make their claim and use my actions against Canaen. Now that charge has failed, they try claim that I am his meatpuppet, even insultingly calling me " Mr. Meatpuppet ". To call a vegan " meat puppet " is a equivalent to calling a black person a nigger dishonestly claiming that I became involved after Canaen posted his thoughts to a Livejournal page. I say dishonestly because I wrote to both the antagonists for their comments and to engae in rational discussion many weeks before the Livejournal postings. Even the use of the accusation of " sock puppetry " was intended to hurt and damage the credibility of those that might not actually have a fixed IP and be held as some sort of crime.

Despite my reminding them of this, they refused to withdraw the allegations. Sorry guys, the date stamps are against you and you can censor them away like Viriditas does other contribution on other's talk pages. Let us be clear ; Idleguy attemtped to stop all development of the topic and ram home criticism against vegans using statistics that were actually from sources criticism the meat industry. [ i.e. deforestation caused by increase demands of cattlefood ]. He was defeated and the criticism moved elsewhere. Skinwalker is trying to ram home an agenda that associates anorexia with veganism using home page FAQs from non-vegans, discussion board material and comment about vegetarians. Consensus is that there is not sufficient evidence to relate this association with veganism. He refused to accept this and instead is using personal attacks against users to try and silence opposition to his POV. Skinwalker calls us " nasty ... veggiebashers " to another contributor on their user page trying to find another ally and so I think that clearly discredits his neutrality. Viriditas - who it must be said does contribute some good - sees himself as a defender of the two above's POVs and acts as self-appointed censor and revisionist - whilst refusing to engage in topic discussion or follow consensus - repeatedly revising the topic to include the above non-sequitors. In doing so, we are suffering a tirade of erroneous and dishonest, accusations, insults, wikitrick, banning and snitches from him ; " vandall [sic] ... attacker ... troll ... POV ... sockpuppet ... meatpuppet ... harrass ". It goes on and on. It appears, by the initial Wiki invite, that Viriditas and Skinwalker have some prior relationship. Skinwalker modus operandi is similar if not so strong.

So the question remains, why are the three of them continuing to attack Canaen when they know he is not their nemesis? Canaen has been reasonable beyond the call of duty, always willing to contribute to the discuss page in a good hearted manner and engage in discussion personally as, particularly Viriditas vomits his abuse in a scatter gun attempt to discredit him. And for the record, the only interaction user Canaen and I have had is for me to apologise for all the abuse he is receiving from Viriditas and Skinwalker on the lie that I was him. Oh ... that and a joke about Lord Huntly's suffering at the battle at the Hill of Fare. 195.82.106.69 00:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)