User talk:Wildlifefreak

Hi. Whilst I am extremely sympathetic to your cause, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soap box (see WP:SOAP). All articles must also be written from a neutral point of view. Thanks —Jeremy (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —Jeremy (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield Foods

I think your additions to the Smithfield Foods article are a bit much. If you want to add content and reference that book, no problem, but what you've done is write a long ad for the book with multiple links. The information is fine but it has to be presented in an encyclopedic manner, be concise, and not support a point of view unless stated as such, so that the opposing view can also be presented so that the article remains balanced. Also, fix your links so that they are a reference rather than an inline link. I'm not reverting your edits, but someone will soon, I'm sure. If you want to, re-add the info without the book ad. Good luck. If you want to reply, do so on my talk page. Bob98133 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better. It still might get taken down for having undue weight WP:UNDUE - that is, it goes into a lot of detail about how the pigs are treated in an article ostensibly about a business. When I have a chance, I'll post a tightened version here. Also, there is an article on gestation crates with a section on farrowing crates. This information would also fit well on that page. There is also a pig and/or pig(food) page where it might fit. Bob98133 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]