User talk:Kotra/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kotra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Soul (film)

Hello, thank you for helping out with the proper template. I was just wondering, you request a consensus in order to move, which all normal in my view, but the very initial move was made without any discussion, nor, this goes without saying, any research of consensus by User:Erikupoeg. Does this validate the very initial move by User:Erikupoeg, meaning that for his move no consensus or discussion were necessary?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the WP:Names#Foreign names does. The film was never released or screened under an English title, therefore an WP:OR translation is out of question. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Rubikonchik. If the move was performed against consensus before, that was certainly wrong. However, we should only be concerned now with if there is justification in consensus and policy for another move. Regardless of past actions, we should now reach consensus for a name. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment removal

Yes, I guess, on second read, that this comment is not the utter nonsense I thought it to be originally. It was so poorly written that, on first reading, it seemed like a random nonsense comment. I guess it is referring to the stated release date for the film. Thanks for the heads up. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have re-added the comment and responded to it. -kotra (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have looked closer at the original message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IP editors

Hi

I have no real problem with editors who just edit article using IP IDs, but i do have concerns about Administrators or those acting as administrators using IP IDS when acting as an administrator, which is most of their time on WIKI. Adminstrators should have to provide some form of positive ID and not remain annonimous. If then persist in using IP IDs then administrator status should be withdrawn. dolfrog (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Others have responded to this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.2Fcurrent, so I will comment there if I have anything further to add. But thanks for your explanation! -kotra (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Docu RfC

Err, yeah. Fixed, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kotra. You have new messages at Aditya's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aditya ^α _ß 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart (actor)

I think you closed that one too early. There was important input yesterday that few have commented on. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I didn't mean to preempt further discussion on the proposed move, as archiving it might have conveyed. I closed the RM because the request had strayed from its original proposal and the nature of the discussion was such that it was beginning to become difficult to conclude where people stood on the second proposal. Anyway, I've de-archived the section about James Stewart now, so further comments don't have to be placed in a new section. Hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it will be difficult to keep the threads separate. I think I move the discussion to the dab page. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No objection here. -kotra (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was closed too early, but with the speed with which it was re-opened and the plethora of "Support as primary meaning" votes, with the only opposing vote hanging on to the failed attempt to move James Stewart (actor) to Jimmy Stewart, I think I would have closed it by moving James Stewart (actor) to James Stewart. Re-opening is cleaner anyway, because it closes the James Stewart vs. Jimmy Stewart issue. Even though it was brought up again. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I was trying to tread cautiously by not moving it until it achieved clearer consensus, but some people seemed annoyed that I didn't go ahead and move it. In any case, the current discussion looks like it will result in a move, so at worst, I just delayed it a bit. Hopefully not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. -kotra (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)#WP:NPOV_and_criminal_conviction

Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have commented there. -kotra (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you too. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart stats

That's exactly how I got the figures, and it took a bit of time to accumulate the figures. I didn't actually assess the figures on the Jimmy Stewart disambiguation page, just the James Stewart one. That was mainly because just entering Jimmy Stewart redirects to the actor. However, the hits to the redirect page for 2009 numbered just slightly over 50000, so if that is removed, that still leaves over 300000 hits. I'm still not sure I understand the point he's making now. It isn't a question about how dominant the use of the name James Stewart is in the world, it's about how many people come to Wikipedia looking for the actor, and I can't seem to follow his reasoning to conclude the figures don't mean something significant regarding the name of the page. Maybe I'm brain dead from the unseasonably hot June we're having here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the core of Born2cycle's argument is that redirects from other pages may artificially inflate the number of page views at James Stewart (actor), making the comparison to other James Stewarts at James Stewart (the disambiguation page) invalid. By subtracting all hits on redirect pages (like Jimmy Stewart), this argument can be shown true or false with reasonable certainty. I haven't crunched the numbers myself though, since I'd prefer to remain neutral on the issue. It's just a thought I had. -kotra (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing about the hits on Jimmy Stewart (the nondisambiguation page) is that since it does redirect to the actor page, the hits on that page are already counted from the redirect action itself. But if we count the hits on the current disambiguation page of James Stewart, I'm not sure how we can assume that each and every time that particular page is accessed, it is for the actor. Actually, I don't think we can. Unless someone is looking for one of the other many James Stewart pages, then they could probably be assumed to be looking for the actor, otherwise they will have clicked on the longer, more specifically named article. Or am I wrong? If we subtract the hits on the James Stewart disambiguation itself, then we are also subtracting the other pages, which have already been subtracted. Ah geez, now I'm confused. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming confusing for me too. The discussion on this is continuing at Talk:James Stewart, but it's only perplexing me further. I don't understand Born2cycle's logic, but I can be dense sometimes... *shrug* I'll just leave it be. -kotra (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for adding the documentation to the {{RM top}} template I created. It's good to know others are getting use out of it. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I did it partially for my own benefit (haven't yet memorized the proper code). Thanks for creating the template, since others indeed are getting use out of it. -kotra (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Old inappropriate usernames with user/talk pages

As you have been active at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names I am asking you this. What about inappropriate usernames that are inappropriate and contributions are only their user page and user talk page creations which were over a year ago? If they are blocked for inappropriate username, their user and talk can be added to CAT:TEMP.--Otterathome (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Current consensus at RFC/U is that there's no reason to spend time discussing and blocking accounts that haven't been used for months; they're considered inactive accounts, and so blocking them wouldn't serve any purpose. This is even more true if their only edits were in their own userspace. Therefore, listing such usernames at RFC/U usually results in them being quickly removed. There are admins who feel all inappropriate names should be blocked, no matter their activity level, but they don't appear to frequent RFC/U. Hope this helps! -kotra (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Yeah, I guess I can see what you mean, it maybe misconstrued as, in a word, threatening or at least offensive. I guess I will change it, keep tabs on it here ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if you know, but "You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead" is a quote from Freddy Krueger from A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. Read the quote here. Just thought you might be curious! Bye! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexican nobility page

Thank you, I hadn't noticed. Actually, sources, etc. are not my favorite areas to work at!.. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Keep in mind, though, that citing one's sources has become crucial these days. Text that is not cited can be challenged and removed at any time by anyone. Just something to keep in mind. -kotra (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon

About this edit--I'm sorry you thought being moved to "inactive" status meant that you had to leave the project. Nothing could be further from the truth. In order to make the membership list easy to maintain, we happen to have created some artificial criteria for the active list and although you certainly contribute a lot to Wikipedia in general, at the time, I couldn't find any participation in Oregon-related articles. In the interests of ease of maintenance of the list (most people show no interest in such a thankless task and have no opinion about how it is managed), I never bothered to inform folks when they had been moved, but that was probably a mistake. Needless to say, you are a very active Oregon Wikipedian, especially in the area of the WikiWednesday group and the legislative stuff, and that certainly counts for a lot. I've taken the liberty of moving your name back into the active participants list, but feel free to change that if you're not comfortable. We've started a long-overdue discussion about the participants list on the WP:ORE talk page, and I'd really welcome your input.

It's unfortunate that we were being sort of cliqueish last time you participated there. Note that my efforts at clarifying who was who in that conversation got totally screwed up. In the first instance, I was trying to tell you that you were a part of the group too--my "quote marks" had nothing to do with a critique of how you addressed our gender. But when I did wish to clarify that AM was male and I was female--and that was merely for your edification so you could avoid awkward grammar--it came across as short and snappish, as I had otherwise said all there was to say about my opinion in the matter. And then I got busy and never clarified my comments further. I'm really sorry if you felt ganged-up on and I hope you will come back. Cheers! P.S. I hope to make it up to WikiWednesday again one of these days soon--so many projects, so few vacations days... Katr67 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your explanations! I admit I myself was being a bit petty when I removed myself from the project; I knew being moved to "inactive" didn't mean I had to leave the project; but being moved without being notified (I had no idea why I wasn't receiving the COTW notices until weeks/months later, and thought I had been unsubscribed due to my comments), and being moved at all, combined with my minor lack of appreciation of the style of the COTW notices and my admittedly low level of activity in WP:ORE at the time (not nonexistant, but low and not apparent) all combined to make me not want to participate in WP:ORE at the time. I've spoken a little more about this at the discussion. In any case, I am not entirely sure if I want to rejoin WP:ORE quite yet, though I accept your apologies in the sincerity they were given. I am pretty busy at the moment, and a couple of the issues above remain, albeit in lesser states. So I've removed my name from the list; no offense intended.

Anyway, thanks again for the note, and I do hope to see you at the Wiki Wednesday sometime! It would be a lot more fun with more Wikipedia people, I think; Pete and Steven haven't been at most of them these days! -kotra (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, I hope you'll continue to post to the current discussion thread on WT:ORE, as you are a respected editor and have a little bit of distance from the ORE project, which can be useful to show us what we could improve. Second, I keep hoping to make it to a WikiWednesday; I think the first one I could make it to is October; I have schedule conflicts or will be OOT until then. tedder (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue to give my crazy opinions there, thanks! Respected, eh? If only they knew the things I've done with 2,000 yards of surgical tubing, a rhinoceros wearing a pink wrestling singlet, and several members of British parliament... the nightmares still haunt me. Anyway, it'd be neat to see you at a Wiki Wednesday sometime. It's too bad your schedule doesn't permit it anytime soon. The idea of recording some of them on video was floated one time, but in the meantime, I've been writing silly little meeting logs that might be of interest. -kotra (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

E.O. Green

Hi Kotra. Good call on moving it back to the "safe" title. I was waffling on whether to do it and whether to file a report at BLPN, and then I got seriously distracted. Clearly there are implications for articles besides this one. Now that there's no potential violation, do you think it still might deserve discussion elsewhere (either BLPN or BLP policy talk, for instance)? Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Only if people object to the move and insist on using "murder" should the issue be taken it to BLPN, I think. Right now, nobody is raising this view, so I don't see a BLPN report being necessary. However, if we want to create a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (crimes) guideline, it would probably be a good idea to cross-post the issue at BLPN, since a guideline has much broader impact. -kotra (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm . . . let me see what I can work up, then. Thanks for the pointer. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see my talk page for a parallel discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with what you've said there. -kotra (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that embarrassing typo. I guess a 7 looks enough like a 9 at 4 something in the am. — Becksguy (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Can't say I haven't made similar typos before. -kotra (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold the mushroom

No worries. I wasn't totally serious and was just reacting to the plant pushing, but it does seem that some editors are very uptight about random stuff, and I do think people can get caught up in narrowminded thinking, which is something I like to challenge. :) I think there's a pretty clear distinction between herbivores/ plant eaters and vegetarians, and it would be good if the article was clear and specific about what vegetarians actually eat. But it's probably not critical and maybe it's not a significant point since we're only talking about humans and most people understand what is meant by "plant".

I think it's positive if people are vegetarian especially if it's based on various ethical motivations (several of which seem to support that choice). The raw food movement is big out here, which is pretty interesting. I've tried some of it and found it to be pretty good stuff. It's neat to have a whole unique alternative cuisine. The vegan issue came up originally with the roadkill cuisine article, so I was just exploring and boldly tweaking. Some people were outraged that a fringe in the vegancommunity seems to think roadkill (which is about as fringey as you can get) is morally okay or at least a gray area for vegans. I don't happen to think people who eat meat are vegan, but it was a real sore point for some reason. Anyway, it's an interesting world. Thanks very much for your nice note. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is a debate about whether food that's cured is raw at the WikiProject Food and Drink project talk page. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the herbivory thing, I assume (or hope) that wasn't in the article for very long because usually there are a few smart people watching it.

It's a bit difficult to list all the things vegetarians can eat since it's basically everything except meat (and slaughter by-products, by some definitions)... the list would include fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, tubers, nuts, dairy, eggs, honey, and all the other little things that don't fit easily into those categories (seaweed, yeast, mushrooms, maple syrup, grasses [including sugarcane], salt, etc)... and I'm probably missing some major things. But if you think you can do it, I won't object!

Yeah, it's odd how people get bent out of shape about labels. I've sometimes found it effective to cut through the drama by insisting on reliable sources and discouraging off-topic discussion, but getting sucked in debating pointless stuff is still easy. I mean, that's what Wikipedia is for, right? I ramble... Anyway, thanks for the response and clarification, and happy editing! -kotra (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that I find your partial list of what vegetarians actually quite interesting. I mean that's the core of the whole thing right, it's a diet of certain foods. So generally it's everything except meat, but when you spell them out, and the gray areas, it gets more interesting. And people can see what there actually is to eat in a vegetarian diet, which is mostly not plants. Sorry if I'm rambling, but seriously, when you look at that list it's kind of interesting. Lots of things that meat eaters probably don't eat regularly. So to make it narrow with "plants" is lame. Fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, tubers, nuts, seaweed, yeast, mushrooms, maple syrup, grasses [including sugarcane], salt, herbs, spices, tubers, root vegetables, and berries. And for some dairy, eggs, and honey. That gets more interesting. When I was vegetarian I remember my aunt in Ohio couldn't fathom what I ate. And I was new to it so I hadn't thought about it much. But it's cool to actually see all the things. Anyway, cheers. I'm a foodie. Same with raw foods, it was hard to imagine until I tried it. that's what I think great encyclopedia articles do is spell out what something really is all about. So the vegetarian article should probably go into the specialized foods like tempeh and that kind of thing too. I haven't actually read beyond the opening. But I started a vegetarian article over the redirect so the diet can be covered separate from teh ideology. We'll see if it holds... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a list of what vegetarians may eat is certainly an interesting topic, but not so easy to maintain or make accurate. It would be almost as daunting a task as a list of all foods, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist on Wikipedia (for good reason: it's too broad). It's unfortunate that so many people don't understand that meat is only a fraction of all food sources, but I'm not sure if a list of vegetarian foods would be possible, practically speaking. But I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Perhaps I'm just overthinking it.

Making it as narrow as "plants" was certainly lame (and just plain wrong), so we agree on that.

As for specialized foods like tempeh and mock meats, that could be a good addition to Vegetarianism. I see we already have a Meat analogue article, but short summary section on it might be good.

I don't think Vegetarian will stay for very long. I think Vegetarianism is more than just about the ideology, it's also about the practice of being vegetarian (at least, according to dictionaries[1][2]). Most of our entries about the people who practice an ideology or lifestyle just redirect/disambiguate to the ideology/practice article (Skeptic, Teetotaller, Naturist, Swinger), although if the topic is distinct by itself or just big enough, there can be legitimate, expansive articles on the people themselves (Christian, Mathematician, Electrician). I think you're going for the latter, but I don't think this is a topic that lends itself to that... I could be wrong though. We'll see how the community receives it. -kotra (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian is at AfD as of 8-29: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegetarian. One interesting argument there: Vegetarian is to Vegetarianism as Christian is to Christianity. It has a certain symmetry and logic, per WP:SPOCK. More seriously, it does raise interesting philosophical questions about the differences between an ideology, the practice of (it's manifestation), and the individual practitioners. Should they each be treated separately in an encyclopedia. Is a vegetarian just an instance of vegetarianism? Is a Protestant just an instance of Protestantism? Which is also interesting since there is no one form or church of Protestantism and Protestant redirects there. However, I suspect the vegetarian article will be deleted, especially since after being cut down, it doesn't say anything really significant or separate from the ideology. Vegetarianism may get overly large and then forked off some more. But the real question here is why don't more people like Brussels Sprouts? — Becksguy (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's classic that there are some Wikipedians who immediately try to delete new articles before they're developed properly. Certainly vegetarian and vegetarianism are not identical or interchangeable subjects. It's also troubling that the article was gutted by those trying to delete it so that it couldn't even be considered properly. Very bad form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably more people don't like brussels sprouts because of anti-Belgian sentiment. That, or because they (brussels sprouts, not Belgians) resemble little ferret brains, and nobody wants to eat that. Yes, that must be the reason. I have solved the mystery.

Anyway, thanks for linking to the AfD and your comments (both of you). I don't have anything to add at the AfD that hasn't already been said there, and the outcome seems pretty assured at this point, so I won't comment. In the future, I think for Vegetarian to exist there needs to be some useful, sourced content in it that wouldn't also be appropriate in Vegetarianism. I can't think of anything like that off the top of my head, but if anyone can, I think Vegetarian would have a good chance of surviving another AfD. -kotra (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

Hi! I left a query at WT:RM about whether or not it's appropriate for non-admins to close move discussions, based partly on this comment of yours. I'd really like to hear your opinion on the issue. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I've given my input there. -kotra (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC bot broken?

Hi! I sort of assumed someone had notified harej about it, but I don't see anything on his talk page or at WT:RM. I'll drop him a note to make sure he's aware of the situation. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -kotra (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on pastor theo's page Ikip (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -kotra (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian

I've responded to your comment. Thanks for your consideration. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded again. Thanks for coming back and explaining what you meant. I definitely need to work on expressing myself more clearly and accurately, which I believe may be my greatest weakness as I present myself for election. In response to your pointing out my mistake, I'm going to go back and add a clarification for answer 4 in a few moments. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a final look. I'll respect our differences and reflect on what you've said. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your helpful explanations and your openness to discussion and others' ideas. Other than this one issue, you are a good candidate and, I can tell from looking over your edits, a great editor. You will probably pass easily, despite my lonely vote, so I'm glad you are considering my views. Thanks, and happy editing! -kotra (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Block of 199.235.123.238

Thank you for your message. The duration of my block was more of a function of this is the eleventh time this school has been blocked. If you wish to decrease the duration, please free, however given the edits coming out of this IP, I do not think I can personally extend AGF that far. Otherwise people at the school who really want to benefit the project should create an account elsewhere and log in while at school. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Since this is a school, and the vandalism in the last month looks like it's coming from one individual, I think 1 year may be enough. This isn't a big deal though, and I'd rather not change your block unless you approve of it. -kotra (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting section on impact of animal hormones on children

The deletion of this section is against the Wiki rules. It is properly referenced, it provides references which directly connect vegetarianism to hormone levels and children and influence of default and higher than default hormone levels in animals to the levels in children. The deletion therefore can not be considered something else but an attempt to water down the article on vegetarianism and hide facts with a possible hidden purpose to protect financial interests. I am not saying you are protecting that hidden purpose, but many of those "voting" against wiki rules may as well be doing so. From your comments I would assume that your view of the issue is somewhat naive. Check out the type of edits done by the "voters" over an extended period of time like 6 months and you will find a group of "delete and block only" editors, which sometimes contribute on trivial matters, but otherwise constantly reduce the articles content and quality. The article on vegetarianism has been turned in to battleground, where every addition no matter how well referenced has to be defended against personal scientific judgement of three editors. Vegetarianism has certain beliefs and makes certain assertions. Currently it is not possible to present those, because they are being challenged as being scientifically false, even though this is not the job of the editors, to be the judge of that. If the reference is reliable and if the reference links to vegetarianism and it mentions a topic not yet mentioned, and if EU even went to WTO court because of it, then the topic should not be deleted, period. Atmapuri (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we are having a communication problem. This is partially my fault, for which I apologize. Allow me to present my views slightly differently. As I interpret the section you added, it is making the case that added hormones in food may cause problems for people. I agree, that is sufficiently sourced. However, that is not a reason to be vegetarian. It is only a reason to avoid food that has added hormones. Therefore, it does not belong in the article about vegetarianism. If my logic is false here, please help me understand. Or, if you are aware of reliable sources that explicitly connect added hormones to vegetarianism, please direct me to them.

On a separate note, I am trying to be supportive and understanding in this discussion, but it does not help when you repeatedly fail to assume good faith on the part of those you disagree with. It reduces the level of discourse when you demonize your fellow editors; we have refrained from doing this to you and would appreciate the same courtesy in response. I personally do not appreciate being characterized as either "protecting financial interests" or "somewhat naive". I would imagine you would not appreciate this either. Please, please refrain from commenting on the contributor: it only makes people less receptive to your views. -kotra (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Trace Cyrus

Thanks for semi protecting the article. I was thinking about it too before the latest round. There was nothing productive done by IPs, just bad edits. Royal broil 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, except for the good IP reversions of the bad IP vandalism. But protection removes the need for those reversions. In any case, no problem, and thanks for the note. -kotra (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)