22:3722:37, 23 November 2015diffhist−58
Beak trimming
Nutty overstatement is inconsistent with rest of (still undue weight) content about pain. Ambiguous too as many forms of trimming are obviously not painful and clearly done for health and loving care of pets. You need stop the POV-pushing. See talk page.
03:3303:33, 23 November 2015diffhist+153
Beak trimming
Added (cited!) comment about humane-ness of heated blade. Saying "w/o anesthesia" implies it's otherwise necessary which isn't well established at all. Lots of videos show beak trimming without it in a way appearing quite humane and necessary for health.
02:3002:30, 23 November 2015diffhist−24
Beak trimming
Removed needless POV snipe. Again, overbearing discussion of "pain" is
WP:undue and POV, misrepresents the subject of the article. Additionally,
WP:burden says *you* need give cite before reinstating after removal for lack of ref.
23:0423:04, 22 November 2015diffhist+27
Beak trimming
Added "heated blade" back in. It's mentioned in the photo's description (although still not cited there). It's really the "w/o anesthesia" part that contains most of the POV, undue weight, digression, etc.
22:5422:54, 22 November 2015diffhist+9
Beak trimming
→Chronic pain: Made it sound less like speculation while retaining what I think is intended meaning (i.e. the elaboration later in para.). Although, all the column-inches going on and on about pain is
undue weight on an obvious POV.
22:2322:23, 22 November 2015diffhist−39
Beak trimming
As well as the photo's page giving no indication nor citation that it was "heated and w/o anasthesia", it's POV and
WP:undue to overfocus on such a digression when simple straightforward wording works just as well and is more encyclopedic.
18:5918:59, 21 November 2015diffhist−56
Jethro Tull (agriculturist)
Removed unnecessary, somewhat over-the-top, confusing statement. (One can't revolutionize the future of something, and something's success isn't ordinarily said to be revolutionized.)
17:2817:28, 9 November 2015diffhist−17
Principal photography
Previous tone placed the reason for "failure" on the actor. It's more encyclopedic to stick to a straightforward statement unencumbered with innuendo about who's fault an undesired result would be.
17:1317:13, 9 November 2015diffhist−85
Orr (Catch-22)
→Major themes: Removed original research. There are no references which state these are "themes". "Themes" of any work are inherently subjective and at the same time a tempting OR hazard. They may be included however, if a good ref says it is theme.Tag: section blanking
05:4505:45, 7 November 2015diffhist+260
Assault
→Consent: These cases aren't specified in enough detail to be clear what they refer to. The cases might be well known to practitioners, but not necessarily by lay readers. Can anyone help with more specifics?
6 November 2015
07:0807:08, 6 November 2015diffhist−266
Vacated judgment
→USA: Ref says this for the case at hand, but it doesn't say it in general. Statement is also dubious as no precedent is binding anyway (I think).
17:0917:09, 5 November 2015diffhist−16
TRS-80
Removed unnecessary "age" distraction. The "age" of any date is almost always immaterial. It's kind of silly to include it unless it's needed for a good (and clear) reason. It's generally included for people, but not anywhere else.
22:3722:37, 23 November 2015diffhist−58
Beak trimming
Nutty overstatement is inconsistent with rest of (still undue weight) content about pain. Ambiguous too as many forms of trimming are obviously not painful and clearly done for health and loving care of pets. You need stop the POV-pushing. See talk page.
03:3303:33, 23 November 2015diffhist+153
Beak trimming
Added (cited!) comment about humane-ness of heated blade. Saying "w/o anesthesia" implies it's otherwise necessary which isn't well established at all. Lots of videos show beak trimming without it in a way appearing quite humane and necessary for health.
02:3002:30, 23 November 2015diffhist−24
Beak trimming
Removed needless POV snipe. Again, overbearing discussion of "pain" is
WP:undue and POV, misrepresents the subject of the article. Additionally,
WP:burden says *you* need give cite before reinstating after removal for lack of ref.
23:0423:04, 22 November 2015diffhist+27
Beak trimming
Added "heated blade" back in. It's mentioned in the photo's description (although still not cited there). It's really the "w/o anesthesia" part that contains most of the POV, undue weight, digression, etc.
22:5422:54, 22 November 2015diffhist+9
Beak trimming
→Chronic pain: Made it sound less like speculation while retaining what I think is intended meaning (i.e. the elaboration later in para.). Although, all the column-inches going on and on about pain is
undue weight on an obvious POV.
22:2322:23, 22 November 2015diffhist−39
Beak trimming
As well as the photo's page giving no indication nor citation that it was "heated and w/o anasthesia", it's POV and
WP:undue to overfocus on such a digression when simple straightforward wording works just as well and is more encyclopedic.
18:5918:59, 21 November 2015diffhist−56
Jethro Tull (agriculturist)
Removed unnecessary, somewhat over-the-top, confusing statement. (One can't revolutionize the future of something, and something's success isn't ordinarily said to be revolutionized.)
17:2817:28, 9 November 2015diffhist−17
Principal photography
Previous tone placed the reason for "failure" on the actor. It's more encyclopedic to stick to a straightforward statement unencumbered with innuendo about who's fault an undesired result would be.
17:1317:13, 9 November 2015diffhist−85
Orr (Catch-22)
→Major themes: Removed original research. There are no references which state these are "themes". "Themes" of any work are inherently subjective and at the same time a tempting OR hazard. They may be included however, if a good ref says it is theme.Tag: section blanking
05:4505:45, 7 November 2015diffhist+260
Assault
→Consent: These cases aren't specified in enough detail to be clear what they refer to. The cases might be well known to practitioners, but not necessarily by lay readers. Can anyone help with more specifics?
6 November 2015
07:0807:08, 6 November 2015diffhist−266
Vacated judgment
→USA: Ref says this for the case at hand, but it doesn't say it in general. Statement is also dubious as no precedent is binding anyway (I think).
17:0917:09, 5 November 2015diffhist−16
TRS-80
Removed unnecessary "age" distraction. The "age" of any date is almost always immaterial. It's kind of silly to include it unless it's needed for a good (and clear) reason. It's generally included for people, but not anywhere else.