User talk:Frei Hans/Archive 2

Telepathy and war article
In reverting my recent edit (placing the same text elsewhere is still a revert) and removing a tag you have gone well beyond the limits of WP:3RR. I suggest you stop, else you will be justifiably blocked (note I haven't reported you for this, as I'm extending good faith.) Verbal   chat  11:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replacing text in a different place can alter the tone of an article. As the content refers to other Wikipedia content and is relevant to the section, and as I am aiming for a neutral tone, I thought you might prefer it where I put it. If you continue to accuse me of making unreasonable edits, while expecting that you yourself can "justifiably" remove large blocks of cited and referenced text, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Why not start an article yourself, have a go at citing and referencing it, and then ask me for feedback. Frei Hans (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules governing WP:3RR are clear. The reintroduction of the text I removed, even in a different place, is a revert. It might not have been considered a revert had you added a WP:RS, but you didn't. Going by the AfD the page will shortly be deleted anyway, and I haven't accused you of what you say. If you continue to make accusations against good faith you may well be reported to WP:WQA, and further reverts will lead to a block. You have ignored lots of good advice, and continue to edit against wikipedia policies (WP:OR in particular). Have a look at WP:YFA and WP:TUTORIAL. Verbal   chat  13:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The replaced text was referenced, and also included two links to existing Wikipedia articles. I do not feel you are editing in good faith. You have hung around deleting content and posting "edit war" notices and so far I see no evidence of your own efforts to write in an encyclopedic style on the article. Having patience and good faith and putting up with ridicule and vandalism are two different things. Frei Hans (talk)
 * See WP:NOTVAND. The article is inherently unencyclopaedic so it isn't possible to write content for it. Wikipedia articles can not be used as references for Wikipedia articles (that's policy), and neither article links Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four with telepathy, let alone telepathy and war - that is synthesis or your part. You need a reference that does that. Verbal   chat  13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The text you mentioned had a reference to a non-wiki source as well as Wikipedia links. If you are concerned about synthesis, then please demonstrate to me how you would non-synthetically write the phrase instead of moaning and moving to delete the whole article. Frei Hans (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I already did that. I took all of the relevant, directly quoted material and wrote it in a neutral way and removed all synthesised conclusion.  You then chose to restore all your own synthesised material. Papa November (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the CBS spot (not a great reference), but to save me time does it actually mention Orwell, thought police, and "telepathy and war" and link them directly, and support the thesis you are making explicitly? If not then I'd remove that sentence, and the section would need retitling. I'm 4 mins in so far.  Verbal   chat  13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just watched the whole thing and saw nothing to support the statement. Could you give the timestamp for the link betweenn telepathy and thought police, etc? Verbal   chat  14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, while not encyclopedic I thought it was a superbly written article , and your art work was beautifully done to. You should have no problems getting this published elsewhere if you so desire.  I've made a copy at wikiInfo  - please upload your images there if you get a chance or let me know if its okay for me to do so , and your article can be restored to its original glory!  I commented on the AfD to, though I fear the chances of saving the article are slim unless several folk have a change of heart on their attitude to what they see as fringe science and the paranormal. We need a miracle! :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, go ahead and upload the image. Somebody quibbled over the image content and licensing but the quibbler was one of the people involved in deleting at least 17 references in the article. I've contacted the author of the modified part of the image in question (the head - based on a Angelina Jolie's) and haven't heard any complaint back. Frei Hans (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have uploaded. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the article well done. Others are determined to destroy it, based on their accepted definition of the word telepathy.  Had you named it something else, it would've been fine.  Also, some consider it to be a conspiracy theory, ignoring the government's own statements about their research, and the patent office as well.  Had it been named remote control/influence of mammals or machinery, perhaps it would've survived.  Some of the information can be recreated in different articles though.  I'm working on a draft now for the proven to exist methods of sending messages into someone's head, be it microwaves, ultra sound, or other means.  Just got to gather up all the valid information, and then determine where to put it at.   D r e a m Focus  16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Look forward to seeing the draft. There's a remarkable amount of information available. I have a few leads on publications about EEG to follow up, probably fairly well known in EEG circles but new to me - these might help explain some concepts in the article. Frei Hans (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
I have posted a question at which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks and be welcoming (formerly the heading named "more sniping" by November)
Once again, you are making unsubstantiated accusations against the behaviour of other editors in inappropriate venues despite being informed about the proper process. You have ignored advice about this from myself and others and regrettably, I will be taking this to dispute resolution. Papa November (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have filed a Wikiquette alert here. Papa November (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop posting provocative "snipes" on my user page before I file some etiquette alerts myself. Frei Hans (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to file a dispute resolution request, but I have already started one. Please feel free to state your side of the story there. Papa November (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)