User talk:Verbal/Archive 2

Welcome msg
Thanks! PhDOnPoint (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility
When engaging in contentious discussions, please try to adopt a high standard of civility. Referring to those who disagree with you as "whining" is not going to strengthen your voice. --Elonka 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think my comment was uncivil, and it was in no way personal. The complaints were, to my mind, feeble, when compared to the good SA has done. The civility and personal nature of comments directed at SA, on the other hand, are questionable. I would like to apologise if you are offended by my comments. They were not directed at any person. Verbal   chat  20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I was attempting a pun (I should have rendered the h in italics, perhaps). I don't see this about sides. All editors have strengths and weaknesses, and we can play to the strengths and help them with their weaknesses. After all, this is not a battleground! Yours, Verbal   chat  20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I have to admit some concerns that ScienceApologist, and some of those who tend to show up at SA discussions, often have a kind of "us and them" mentality, where the "us" is pro-science editors who are therefore "good", and the "them" is anti-science editors who are "bad". In fact, I have even seen cases where some editors who (appear to me to be) simply pro-neutrality, seem to get labeled as "anti-science" or "pro-fringe".  These kinds of polarized labels tend to be unhelpful. --Elonka 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Sorry I didn't reply - I went to bed. Verbal   chat  09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Cantor
You placed a PROD on this article that has been removed, are you aware of this?Paste (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. Colonel Warden made some changes, and I'll have another look when I have time. If you have an opinion please share it on the talk page or take to AfD if you like. Verbal   chat  13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Chris Busby
Verbal, I hope this is how I contact you. Thank you for your welcome. I have tried to change the Christopher Busby article but actually i would be interested in this area of bias and neutrality in science. It seems to me that the approach where any statement is referenced to an independent source may be a good starting point but where there are major discussions on the 'truth' there are potential problems. This is the origin of peer review, but we know many instances where this goes astray.Profwoland (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this is almost the right way to do it :) I've moved your comment to the bottom and added a title, I hope you don't mind. The way to continue is to suggest additions on the article talk page, and build a WP:CONSENSUS on the wording and what should go in. BLPs are a difficult area due to libel laws etc, so we need the tone to be entirely neutral. That includes not having an excessively positive tone (as that is not neutral), as well as not allowing attacks. We can discuss this further here or on the article talk page if you wish. Thanks, Verbal   chat  13:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this where I contact Mr Verbal? If so, can you explain your irritated tone and what is meant by 'puff piece'? Also why did youi remove the items I added to the Christopher Busby entry. They are all verifiable. Is it not of interest to lay out the uranium stuff? After all, that is what Busby has discovered and it is verifiable. Is this where I negotiate on the revert discuss method? Why are you maintaining the negative bias in the article? Profwoland (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please bring up any negative bias on the talk page (self-published is true, and is not negative). The revert was to remove the non-neutral tone and contentious material that the project cannot condone in biographies of living persons. I did not mean to come across as irritated. Verbal   chat  15:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallo libel
Hey I deleted libellous remarks about Gallo by IP at Robert Gallo and AIDS denialism, sorry I took the whole section out but i thought I had to. RetroS1mone  talk  14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I nearly considered reporting that myself but decided that this stuff must be said about him all the time. Anyway, I agree that it should be removed. Yours, Verbal   chat  14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ADHD
We are having lots of issues determining what sources should be used in this article. Scuro and I are unable to agree on anything else either. Another editor is always appreciated. --Doc James (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals
Thanks. I agree that the content I restored is not terribly valuable, but someone thought it was. It shouldn't have been in the same ph as the PETA stuff, but I thought you might have axed it by association. :) Go ahead and delete it if you want,all the same to me. Bob98133 (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it, no objection to staying or going. Thanks :) Verbal   chat  16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Psionics
I have added a section on Talk:Psionics. the link that I am proposing to add back meets WP:EL no problem. Thank you. --Neskaya talk 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs)

John Swinton
I have removed the prod tag from John Swinton, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! I added a couple of refs and showed that he was a Fellow of the Royal Society. Another editor has also added a bunch to the article. MadScot (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks a lot better now. Verbal   chat  18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop re-adding the category "Category:Alternative medicine" to the article Dianetics, which is neither a form of medicine, psychiatry, or alternative medicine. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May I just remind you that the Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on article probation per this decision. Categories, because of their generality, would seem to require special consideration where verifiability is concerned, and I urge you to discuss this with other editors on the relevant talk page lest sanctions be applied. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of this sanction, thanks. A sub category of AltMed would be appropriate, but until this discussion was closed I decided to add the super category. Verbal   chat  09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

wiktionary Glossary of alternative medicine
Hello, you removed my dict on Glossary of alternative medicine. However, this was previously transwikied before (see Talk:Glossary of alternative medicine), so glossaries do seem to qualify for transwiki to wiktionary. As this is a newer version of the article, it should also be transwikied, no? A few glossaries have been transwikied by decision at AfD before, so I find the revert strange. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a large discussion on WP:NOT, also please leave your reasoning on the article talk page. This would need a huge amount of copyediting to stay in any wikiproject. Are you a wiktionary editor? Many thanks. Verbal   chat  09:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see that some people want glossaries on Wikipedia. But that does not mean that they should not be copied to wiktionary in any case. As this was previously transwikied, I would assume that the current version should also be able to be copied over (which would not mean that it could not also exist here). Some glossaries are broken apart at Wiktionary into separate entries. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of it being deleted, as it is biased, unreferenced, and duplicates content. Verbal   chat  07:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

TCM
Hi Verbal, and thanks for dropping by. No problem about the alphabetical order! Some people keep trying to add things on "pseudo-science" to the Traditional Chinese medicine page, and some other editors (not me) keep objecting, but since the page you linked to discusses TCM, I see no reason not to add it as a reference. So thanks!--Madalibi (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractal Cosmology re-direct
Greetings,

I am the primary author of the article that just got shunted. While I feel that the Fractal Cosmology article may have needed edits or critical review, I feel that ScienceApologist's strategy to re-direct the article out of existence was harsh and a bit underhanded. Your comments about the need to review the Fractal time and Fractal cosmology entires were well founded, and you displayed respectful judgment and healthy criticism, he went off the deep end in my opinion. I would be happy to take up your concerns on the discussion page, or on my user page, should I manage to re-establish the earlier content of that article.

I've left some comments on the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard page, in the section on this topic. I want to be a gentleman about this, and take any criticism seriously.

I will gladly take up any questions or issues you can offer, and I feel strongly that I can provide compelling evidence that will force you to re-consider your bias against the legitimacy of this topic. Perhaps I can offset some of your prejudice against the Fractal universe view, or at least show it's made serious inroads to mainstream acceptance, and is therefore worthy of inclusion as a topic in a serious reference work, which I sense you would like to see WikiPedia become.

But please bring your concerns to the larger forum, if you feel the article is full of junk. Perhaps making it more factual, or making explicit mention of the fact that some in the mainstream regard the 'Fractal conjecture' as a fiction, would make it more even-handed. It may even deserve deletion, as a topic which is not sufficiently notable, or because is too far into Fringe domains. In other words, the article may have needed re-writes or critical edits, but did not deserve the treatment SA gave it.

Let's discuss this peacefully, and resolve this amicably. Your critical review is invited, though not requested, as I share your view that the article had some trouble spots, and was going to give it attention anyway. I will admit there was too much fluff, or perhaps too much advocacy of the fractal view, but that did not merit SA's choice of action.

So; let's discuss this, or bring it up for review. But know that I feel SA's choice to re-direct first, and announce later, was somewhat un-civilized or crude. And for you to tacitly respond by correcting his re-direct signals that you agreed with his action.

All the best,

JonathanD (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's pretty standard on wikipedia, see WP:BRD. I have left a note on your talk page suggesting you tone down your rhetoric and attack on SA. You can simply revert the change and then improve the article, or merge the article into the linked one. Verbal   chat  16:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a civil response Re: Fractal cosmology issues
Thank you for your kind comments. I will remember your suggestions, especially that we are required to 'assume good faith' even when it would not seem to be in evidence. I guess I can sling the mud, though, even when I don't feel I am being cruel or derisive. I'll review my earlier comments and recant, or redact, what I can.

Would it not have been more proper to tag the page for deletion or violation of Wiki standards, then act? Though it may require more time and effort, and may put more judgmental or critical comments in the public record, I think that would have been the more civil thing for SA to do. I'm glad some people play fair, and I wish to treat all Wikians as allies for the cause of improving WikiPedia, but it's difficult sometimes - even for an easy-going person.

It's ironic though. I wrote the Fractal cosmology article because when I found it the Wiki was re-directing to "Infinite Hierarchal Nesting..." which was an extremely unscientific article that emphasized only the Fringe element. Not long after that; "Infinite Hierarchal..." was summarily deleted. So I was trying to be inclusive, or even-handed, by not rejecting the Fractal hypothesis outright, nor confirming and affirming its validity, but linking it to some real Science.

Oh well.

All the Best,

JonathanD (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Query Re: COI issues of Fractal Cosmology
I find your COI tag usage intriguing, as I have assiduously avoided referencing any of my writing on the subject, in this article. It is true I have researched the topic, and have works published or in preparation that talk about fractals in cosmology. To what extent must someone who is well-versed in a topic recuse himself, to avoid COI concerns? Are you implying that I would have to know less about the subject, in order to be qualified to write on it in an unbiased way? Or perhaps you feel that only those who are expert in Astrophysics or Cosmology, and unfriendly toward the idea of a Fractal universe, can be trusted to treat it even-handedly.

It seems you feel strongly that the whole idea is junk, which seems unjustified or pejorative, though you may be correct. I know that the WikiPedia is not the arena to attempt the proof of things rejected by Science, but this seems not to be the case, and I have tried to be a good journalist about this rather than using the Wiki to spout my own views on the subject. Yes, I have been investigating this question (of a fractal universe) for more than 20 years now, but I'm only now seeking to publish what I've learned. I feel this is a topic that the public deserves to learn about, as it is gaining momentum within the scientific mainstream, but my web-site, academic papers, and upcoming book have not been referenced anywhere on the page (nor was that my intent).

I did present at the Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC2), this past September, and so did at least 4 other individuals who favor a fractal view of the Cosmos. But having an external link to CCC1, where Baryshev introduced the work which would later be in his book, I thought this would only be proper. That's the one COI instance I can see, right now, using the Wiki's own definition (or my interpretation thereof).

But it's certain I can't fix the problems you cite with the article, if I do recuse myself. Please clarify where you stand on this, so we can get past the issues, and make the Wiki better.

Regards,

JonathanD (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * it's just a notice. If you declare any issues on the talk page (like you did above) then it should be ok, however you should be careful not to bias the article towards your interpretation rather than the mainstream interpretation which may be behind the current state-of-the-art within the field. Verbal   chat  18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC
Verbal, I noticed that you've been warning for personal attacks at admin Slrubenstein's RfC.  However, I find this curious, considering how many attacks have been flying around on that talkpage, but you ignored all of them except a comparatively mild comment by Mervyn.  In my mind this seems a bit unfair, considering all the other abuse that this particular new editor has been taking in the RfC and on the talkpage. Note that I'm not against warnings, and that I am a big fan of civility. But when warnings are given just to one side in a dispute, and equal or worse transgressions on the other "side" are ignored, it may present the appearance of a double standard. So in the future, perhaps try to be more evenhanded? Thanks, --Elonka 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I hadn't read most of the rest of the talk page - and I attempted it as a bit of advice to someone involved. Obviously, feel free to warn others. I only noticed that as it was in a section I had already commented. Maybe a notice should be placed at the top. I should have linked to the civility policy rather than NPA, probably. It is getting a bit heated in there. Is there a standard template to go at the top? I'll have a look. Verbal   chat  19:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, good idea. --Elonka 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a go and posted on Mervyn's talk. Thanks for being so civil (nice? wikispeak is confusing to me) about it. Yours, Verbal   chat  19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and I'm wrong - I hadn't already commented there. I'm not sure why I noticed it now. Sorry! Verbal   chat  20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks. See you around, Verbal   chat  17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Osteopathy in Canada
Your edits to the section regarding Osteopathy in Canada, do not reflect the legal status in Canada. You stated that there are 550 “osteopaths” in Canada, yet not a single one of them is licensed to practice as an osteopath in Canada. From its origins in the United States, osteopathy in North America has always been comprehensive health care inclusive of medicine, surgery, and osteopathic manipulative treatment, not just manual therapy. The majority of legitimate and licensed osteopathic practitioners in Canada practice comprehensive osteopathy inclusive of manual therapy. The terms osteopath and osteopathic physician are synonymous, just as the terms osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are. In 1995, the American Osteopathic Association, decided to modernize its terminology. Prior to 1995 AOA accredited osteopathic graduates were awarded a ‘Doctor of Osteopathy’ degree. Since 1995, they have been conferred the ‘Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine’ degree. Thus we have graduates with the same education and same scope of practice with degrees in osteopathy or osteopathic medicine. This does not mean that the AOA has turned over its titles to non-physician practitioners. Most of the osteopathic physicians practicing in Canada have a degree in ‘Osteopathy’. It is unreasonable and provides Wikipedia and the public with misinformation to promote non-registered osteopaths in Canada, especially when this group of practitioners does not come close to meeting any national or international standard for osteopathic licensure. It is very unlikely that any of the 550 that you have mentioned could get a license to practice osteopathy anywhere let alone in Canada. Please do not keep changing my corrections to the section on Osteopathy in Canada. Clearly you are reflecting a bias and not the proper legal regulatory status in Canada. Osteocorrect (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between osteopathy the alternative medicine, as originated and mainly practised in Europe, and osteopathic physicians with DOs that are licensed medical doctors. Osteopaths of the first kind exist in Canada and can practice the alternative medicine, but are not doctors in any way. You are incorrect that altmed osteopathy by people who aren't doctors doesn't happen in Canada. Verbal   chat  16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a huge difference between the two. However, legislative title protection and regulations protect the later. You say that "osetopaths of the first kind exist in Canada and can practice the alternative medicine". In fact you are quite wrong. It is not recognized as alternative medicine in Canada, except by those who pracitice it and do so illegally. Any european osteopathic graduate attemtping to do so in Canada, is also in violation of regulations in Canada. I would challenge you to identify a single non-physician practitioner claiming to practice osteopathy in Canada who does so as a licensed osteopathic practitioner. You won't be able to because it is not possible. This is why your edits are promoting misinformation on Wikipedia. I would ask that you undo your revisions. Osteocorrect (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll have to bring some sources to that effect. I suggest taking them to the Medical Project for discussion. Verbal   chat  17:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already included several sources in the content of my submission to Wikipedia in support of the actual reality and regulations of the practice of osteopathy in Canada. Please take the time to review them. You are otherwise asking me to find sources regarding the absence of legislation for non-physician osteopaths? How does one source something that doesn't exist? There is no legislation for non-physician osteopaths in Canada, and it would be unreasonable to expect that there should be two osteopathic professions in Canada either. There isn't in the USA. I challenge you to source a single piece of legislation anywhere in Canada that allows non-physician osteopaths to practice in Canada. Again, I will ask that you do the responsible thing and undo your edits to the accurate content of my submissions.Osteocorrect (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Licensure isn't the issue. Feel free to add that osteopathic training there does not give licence to practice as a physician, only training as an "osteopath" in the altmed tradition. Personally, I think osteopathy-altmed is rubbish, but claiming it doesn't exist because you don't become a doctor after isn't true either. Verbal   chat  21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You’re not quite getting it. Licensure is entirely the issue. What other country would allow non-licensed practitioners to practice, and to practice using professional designations already in use by an established profession? The point is that the training being provided in Canada does not give one license to practice at all. Yes, I agree that referring to Osteopathy as alternative medicine is rubbish, as the Canadian and American Osteopathic Associations would argue that it is the most comprehensive and complete system of health care in the world. I never said that these non-physician practitioners don’t exist. They have not however gone through proper channels to obtain permission and accreditation to open a training institution with provincial regulatory authorities, and as such the schools do not provide a recognized qualification. This is the point I am attempting to make. It is very important that the public understand this, otherwise the posting in Wikipedia is misleading.Osteocorrect (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch
Howdy valiant Verbal; just a heads up that I'm asking (on the naturopathic medicine talk page) where in WP quackwatch/Barrett are cited as reliable sources. Merci! Lamaybe (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can't remember where it was a while ago. I suggest asking either on the Barrett or QW article, or posting any questions to the RS page. Thanks for letting me know :) Merry Christmas! Verbal   chat  10:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your preference ?
You removed a recent request I posted here without either replying or archiving it. If you do not want me to post here at your talk page, then that is of course your prerogative, and I will respect that. However, you also objected when I directed the same request to you at Talk:Seth Material. To achieve collaborative editing, it is sometimes necessary to have one-to-one dialogue, as well as participating in general discussions. If you do not want me to address requests or comments to you either here or on article talk pages, how and where would you prefer us to have a dialogue ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I immediately actioned your request, so I simply removed it. Thanks, Verbal   chat  15:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material
I think that your behavior on Wikipedia is dishonest, and that your actions are bad for Wikipedia in general. Redirecting people away from an article is an obvious "stealth deletion", and it amounts to censorship. Deletion should be an action of last resort only for very bad articles which have no purpose and cannot be improved, and it should only be done with a consensus or through official channels. You have glommed onto various Wikipedia principles, but in each case you are stretching the principle in order to achieve your objective of censorship. It has been explained to you repeatedly why the Seth Material is notable; but instead of deferring to people with greater knowledge of the subject, you continue to insist on your narrow view. The Fringe principle is supposed to apply to obscure scientific theories, yet the Seth Material has nothing to do with science. The In Universe principle is supposed to apply to fiction, yet the Seth Material is not fiction. Furthermore, if the article is deleted, how can it be improved? (But then, you don't really want it improved, do you?) The lack of second-party references is merely an issue to be addressed, not a cause for deletion. In the mean time, you would deprive readers of the opportunity to judge the article for themselves.

What you and Moreschi really are is bullies. You twist the rules to deprive other people of their rights to read and write articles of their choosing. Any rule can be twisted to purposes that it wasn't intended for, and using the rules to censor the encyclopedia -- i.e., to decrease the amount of information in it -- is about as odious as it gets.

Ah, I see you're a Christian. Now I know why you're doing it.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't redirect the article. If you noticed I was working with you to try and fix the article, which is very poorly written. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we have policies about being civil and not making personal attacks. I do not want to remove your page because I am a Christian, and I find your suggestion offensive. It should be well sourced, as I have repeatedly said on the talk page. People who cry censorship on a free service that anyone can edit, when the material is being removed because it fails basic policies, are the ones with problems. But they aren't bad for the project - they just need to learn wikipedia policies and contribute within the communities wishes. Verbal   chat  07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You still don't seem to GET the fact that Wikipedia is an evolving site, and that the way to improve an article is to leave it on the system so people can keep working on it. Furthermore, the Seth Material is a subject of some significance to a lot of people, and your desire to delete the article shows a clear bias of SOME KIND, and certainly it shows a lack of knowledge of the field of paranormal activity.  Your assertion that you have tried to work with me is a laugh because, at the same time that you've supposedly done that, you have continued to look for reasons to delete the article.  A person like you is harmful to Wikipedia.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the main space is for notable topics that are referenced. If you want to work on the article in this state ask for it to be copied to you userspace. When you have provided secondary and tertiary sources then it is worthy of inclusion. My bias is towards wikipedia policies in this respect - principally WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE, WP:V and WP:RS. Again, I have not tired to delete the article, nor look for reasons. Put your energy into improving the article. Verbal   chat  07:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edits are just astonishingly clumsy, and usually they don't add any clarity to the text. Why do you bother?  And why do you think that you can responsibly edit an article about a subject you know nothing about?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop your personal attacks please, they will get you blocked. You could have removed the typo yourself, or alerted me, rather than vandalising the article. Please stop being rude and simply source the article. I'd rather you did it over at the Jane Roberts page. Verbal   chat  08:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Verbal, although I think it obvious he doesn't approve of the article, did make some constructive edits (which I think did improve the article some), and his/her religious belief is neither here nor there. I am a Buddhist and Seth did not have much favourable to say about us, but I am in favour of retaining the article and improving it. Of all the opponents, verbal has by far been the most civil, and has actually stated what he expects in terms of article imporvement unlike the other detractors, so please let's calm down some. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth
Oooh thanks for the heads up, I commented. If you can't get a merged agreed on there, I'd suggest taking it to AfD, as the 'normal' people at AfD, who aren't into this stuff, would all say it should be merged/redirected (worth a go, anyway.) Sticky Parkin 12:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree for what it's worth. Nothing good is happening with that article, best to get some outside views to break the stalemate. I do think the article has been subjected to unfair scrutiny while less notable subjects stay, but if you get a consensus at AfD, that will have to stand one way or the other. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to take it to AfD, as I think the good material should just be merged. 70, I didn't notify you as you don't have an account and I don't know if your IP is static. It'd be much easier to get involved if you had an account. Verbal   chat  13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Verbal, I had an account before, and was an active editor for a number of years, and fights, squabbles and incessant bickering made me give up on this project. To me Wikipedia is mainly a place where people come to argue. Virtually every effort I make at contributing is undone or attacked somehow, so what I have done mainly is to add infoboxes, persondata boxes, and provide the occasional reference whenever I was able, usually to biographies or low-interest articles so as to avoid the headaches of fussing like a bunch of old women. Since I just finished reading the Seth books I figured I could be of use there, but apparently its no go. So I really don't see why I should get an account, and my opinion will just be discounted anyway. As for the merge . . . the "Seth Material" was already in the Jane Roberts article until it was decided that the channeled material overwhelmed the biographical aspects and was spun off to its own separate article. Reverting the JR article would be easy enough to do with no loss of material if that is what you wish. I do have a static IP, btw. I am sorry if I sound cynical but I have been through this time and time again and frankly its not worth the headache. Sorry. I am out of the discussion after this, but I did want to say that of all the critics, your suggestions were the most constructive and you did more than the others to help. Cheers. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No problem with you not having an account by choice. My problem is with the large tenets section which doesn't have references or integrate well. It doesn't really fit into either article, and without that section the article is better. If it can be summarised into two paragraphs that would be much much better, and then it would all fit nicely into the Jane Roberts article, or maybe a shorter and clearer article of it's own. Verbal   chat  13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be hard to get secondary sources for a lot of the tenets I think since the material was "revealed" . . . there are some other sources that exist but the material is not considered "current" by New Age standards . . . more current books like "The Secret" use many of the same ideas, but alas, with no credit given. For what it is worth, the material about god and Christ . . . the Seth personality did mention them but they were ancillary to the main message. The main idea of Seth's was that you create your personal reality via your expectations and beliefs . . . that is barely touched upon and is the central idea. The theology aspects is something that was mentioned but was not in any way central to Robert's/Seth's ideas. You can check the history of the Roberts article . . . there may be something salvageable there . . . all of this was originally there before being spun off anyway. Keep in mind that when requesting a one-paragraph summary you are asking for a condensation of over ten books, and this was the problem I think before with keeping it in the Roberts article . . . the "tenets" overwhelmed the biography to such an extent that it looked . . . odd. Caleb I think did a good job getting the whole thing going, but he does tend to get a bit hot under the collar (incidentally, Roberts herself was concerned that people would turn these ideas into a religion and disapproved, and if you are following the tenets of the material you would not act in an uncivil manner). But anyway thanks for being decent. Take care. Note added later: Maybe I was wrong. I just found this: Independent Sources . . . I haven't had the time to actually look up what they say, but they do exist. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Seth Material, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

National Revival of Poland
I saw that you removed the POV tag from this article and I agree with your action. The user who placed the tag, User:Pedro Alfonso de Cule, left a grossly uncivil and inflammatory comment at the article's talk page. I am not sure if it should be removed or not, especially in view of the opening sentence of his comment. I left a warning message at his talk page. I am not sure if one should do more here... Nsk92 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion on WP:ANI about this. Thanks, Verbal [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat ]] 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Huggins
Huggins' critique of root canals and implants is NOT contained in the sources cited, hence my returning the primary source.--Alterrabe (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy
Sorry, Verbal, I was a little quick at removing the link to www.media-awareness.ca. It's because it was leading to a wrong page. I have now corrected the link (which is ). Indeed, www.media-awareness.ca seems to be a valuable resource! Best, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for fixing. I should have confirmed the link was pointing to the right place! Verbal   chat  08:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

HAB Table and TOC Table formating
For future reference: Please take note of the change I made to your HAB table. Important: Please also note the reason as described in the edit summary here. --CyclePat (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "my" table. If you calm down a bit (eg not using "important" when it clearly isn't), and don't make accusations of ownership or otherwise so often ("your" table, etc) then you might find people respond to your edits better. Verbal   chat  15:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is important because it shows that the table which you used to archive the discussion doesn't work with the TOC. Hence there are some formating issues. The formating issues are important because it reduces the ability to properly access the information. Also, please accept my appology... trully it is not "your" table but our or a table! This make a clear difference as for the HAB vs. TOC formating error. I clearly understand your concerns of association and do appologize. Moving on: I would like to point out that in our discussion (now found on my talk page for some reason), you've used the "your discussion". A discussion involves two people... so that would be our discussion! Yes! I understand that their may be a psychological factor, which involves the fact that the one asking the question is generally the one controlling the conversation, but all in all, this was (or is) our discussion. Which means we are working together. It's very important to keep in mind that this is a team effort. I plan to continue developping the article whether or not we manage to collaborate. Hence, if you continue to low-ball the issues regarding the development of the article I will be force to simply make the changes per WP:BOLD. Also, please be advised: I've raised some issues regarding this talk page, how we archive and present our templates, which lead me to believe I'm being harassed. You may find this and your user name mentioned Here at the Administrator's Notice board. Comments on user conduct are welcome there. --CyclePat (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
I was not uncivil. لenna vecia  00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for coming here. I felt that it was not entirely civil, but as always with the written word, in a forum such as this, tone can be a problem - and understand that you feel it wasn't. This isn't a major issue. My comment was short but I didn't mean to imply that ME couldn't comment on the votes - that has, as you said, been established. ME has been given some good advice, but also some, in my opinion, poor advice - he might even agree - but that isn't important now. Mervyn has had a rocky start, but I hope he continues to contribute to the encyclopaedia. As an aside, I'm not sure about his oppose comments as I don't fully understand them, and would think people unfamiliar with his recent history would even less (including those the comments are directed at), but it doesn't bother me that he has expressed his opinion. Anyway: all the best, and sorry for our little disagreement last night. No offence was intended towards you or Mervyn. Verbal   chat  14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI draft
User_talk:WLU/RFC, feel free to add. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I look at it soon, but I'm pretty busy until Sat. Rather than "it could be a joke" doesn't he say that his "team" have acted dishonestly? I'll have to read it again. "We were all furthermore asked to test how a range of policies were functioning in practice, without (purposely) breaking them." eek. He failed on that one... Verbal   chat  16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I refuse to play a game where this is treated as a credible subject with any meaningful implications. As an editor I am treating this as a disclosure by a disruptive editor that he has been participating in a process that is in violation of WP:POINT and WP:NOT (really POINT and WP:ENC - we're not a testing ground).  Personally I see it more as an attention-grabbing mechanism and refuse to treat it as anything but.  His disclosure that the process had stopped was my signal to cease giving it attention.  A second disclosure that he is continuing to experiment with us, means it gets only sufficient attention required to ensure an editor who is not trying to build an encyclopedia, but rather to prove something to himself, is prevented from further disruption.  I don't care if its true or not, but I do care that it interrupts real work.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Szheish!
You're right! I've used fu often in edit summary as shorthand for "follow up", without even thinking! Thanks for pointing this out. I won't do it again. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - I was just disappointed that the post wasn't actually a FU, although happy underneath :) Verbal   chat  22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seth Material
An article that you have been involved in editing, Seth Material, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Seth Material. Thank you. NoVomit (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP
Do not remove a BLP tag on an article with BLP issues. Such action could be interpreted as trolling. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have BLP issues, consensus seems to be to keep it off. We shouldn't change policy for this one image. I suggest you start a new policy about "photos of living people" and/or "bands with living members" and try to get them accepted by the community. Please don't use the word trolling to describe the good faith edits of others. This is not a case of WP:SPADE. Verbal   chat  08:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jane Roberts links
Sorry, it wasn't clear to me how to format the links.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you think they can be worded better, feel free. Verbal   chat  10:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for Taking a Stand
Thanks for nixing that troll's spam before he hijacked another thread. ~Paul V. Keller 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting to get any thanks for it! I've tagged the page and we need to make sure to keep this on topic. We should link to the recent findings against PCarbonne as a warning. Verbal   chat  22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed
I've compiled a handy list of recent contrib IPs since he refuses to register. (follows sig)LeadSongDog (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed's Contribs:

Special:Contributions/68.19.97.69

Special:Contributions/68.19.98.26

Special:Contributions/68.211.45.202

Special:Contributions/68.217.47.115

Special:Contributions/68.219.54.221

Special:Contributions/68.219.153.139

Special:Contributions/68.158.255.197

Special:Contributions/208.65.88.212

Special:Contributions/208.65.88.243

Special:Contributions/208.65.89.136

Special:Contributions/208.89.102.43

Special:Contributions/208.89.102.114

Jed's talk:

User_talk:68.19.97.69

User_talk:68.19.98.26

User_talk:68.211.45.202

User_talk:68.217.47.115

User_talk:68.219.54.221

User_talk:68.219.153.139

User_talk:68.158.255.197

User_talk:208.65.88.212

User_talk:208.65.88.243

User_talk:208.65.89.136

User_talk:208.89.102.43

User_talk:208.89.102.114

Cold fusion
I've posted the topic ban notice at the top of the talk page - that should be adequate I think, but if you wanted to leave a message on the talk page, that'd be great too.--Tznkai (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw that a bit later. All the best, Verbal   chat

Guido den Broeder
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A.T. Still
Why do you undo the edits I made to A.T. Still's article. They changes I made were sourced with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumaka (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
Please explain this edit restoring unreferenced slanderous information to a Good Article. I'm assuming it was an honest mistake and not pov-pushing, but rather than undo it I would prefer if you did so yourself. Sincerely, Skomorokh  16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop POV pushing. Is this a legal threat? Verbal   chat  17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? No it is not remotely a legal threat. You added to the article Stormfront (website), despite the fact that nowhere in the article is there a reliable source cited for a claim that the website is Neo-Nazi. I thought you were an errant recent changes patroller. Please explain.  Skomorokh  17:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think sources are required in the article for categories except pseudoscience ones if disputed. Slander is a legal term and should be avoided on-wiki. Sources are available - use google and the advice given to you on orange marlin's talk page. Verbal   chat  18:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources are required at the very least for every contested claim, verifiability is very clear on this. The burden of proof is on the claimant (i.e. you); I cannot prove a negative. Are you going to remove the category or not? Skomorokh  18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I going to remove a correctly applied category? No. I would advise you against edit warring. You've been given much advice. Verbal   chat  18:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not correctly applied. WP:BURDEN is policy. I quote:
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Skomorokh  18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The category is correct, and categories do not require sourcing. THis one is so obviously correct that your wiki-lawyering is showing. Stop being disruptive please. Verbal   chat  19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing policy is not wikilawyering; I'm not relying on some arcane side point - it's a core tenet of the encyclopaedia that all content be derived from reliable, third party sources. Do you honestly think it acceptable that editors add articles to whichever categories they personally feel apply? Skomorokh  20:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when are categories supposed to be referenced? I see you warning OM and now Verbal, do you have WP:OWN problems? I don't understand why you are so combative to be honest with you. If you have a problem with what someone puts in the usual thing to do is take it to the talk page of the article, not to go to every editor and warn them that they are wrong and that they will fix it or you will remove it. Please you the talk page and discuss. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when are categories supposed to be referenced? Are you serious? Categorization. It's an editing guideline. It does not take long to read. Skomorokh  20:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That guideline does not support the removal of this category. Please stop your threats of disruptive editing and take this discussion to the correct forum: article talk page. Verbal   chat  22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It strikes me as a relatively uncontroversial categorisation, but given that Skomorokh disputes the cat, it would be helpful to add a supproting ref to the article. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guettarda. Verbal, there is a discussion ongoing at the talkpage. I am sorry for pursuing the matter here after you had apparently tired of it, but the notion suggested by yourself and "CrohnieGal" above that categorisation need not be supported by reliable sources is dangerously wrong. Ciao, Skomorokh  03:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That said Skomorokh, calling the cat "slanderous" is probably an unhelpful escalation. You can get your point across quite adequately without it; including it tends to turn a difference of opinion into a dispute.  Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to convey the idea that this identification may be derogatory, offensive and inaccurate; I can only imagine how a run-of-the-mill nationalist would feel at being associated with the genocidal Third Reich. English is not my first language, and evidently the adjective was misinterpreted as legalistic; the underlying point is what is important. Skomorokh  03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto on "dangerously wrong". Adding an unref'd cat is like adding any other unref'd info.  "Verifiable" is not the same as "verified".  But characterising what Crohnie had to say as "dangerously wrong", when last I checked it isn't even technically wrong (though I realise I may be out of date on the policy regarding cats), is again, unhelpfully inflammatory.  Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that one can add whichever one categories one pleases to an article without having that categorisation supported by reliably sourced claims in the article is certainly wrong, doubly so for controversial topics, and triply so for controversial topics involving living people. Allowing a popular POV masquerade as a neutral POV on such topics is dangerous to both the subjects and the encyclopaedia. I don't think this issue is being treated with the levity it merits. Skomorokh  03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think that the issue needs to be taken more seriously, try using language that will be taken seriously. Your choice of language so far seems to be carefully chosen to ensure that you are not taken seriously.  If you think the issue is serious, you should start by avoiding language that makes it look like you are trying to pick a fight.
 * To begin with, you start off by calling this "tendentious editing", which it clearly is not. When you arrive with fighting words, you make communication and civil discourse impossible.  It's all the worse when your accusations are inaccurate, as they are here.
 * Next you alight upon the favourite buzzword of troublemakers: "slanderous". To begin with, it can't be slander if it's written, it's libel.  In addition, not every negative statement about a person is "slanderous" - slander pertains to actionable defamation.  Do you have any evidence that the statement is false?  Statements that are true cannot be slander/libel.  The factual accuracy isn't the issue here, is it?  If you honestly thought the label to be slander (and I assume you used the term in good faith), it's simply going to make people defensive - it's everyone's favourite legal threat.  Granted, your title did that already, but for future reference, it's easy to convey your message without using language like that.  It does not make for civil communication, it does not get your message heard.
 * Similarly, calling Crohnie's statement "dangerously wrong" when it was technically right, is a bad idea. The only policy I see applicable here is WP:V; the notes on categorisation that you linked to are guidelines - they should be taken seriously by editors, they should be taken into consideration...but when you use them to bash other editors over the head (as you did here), it merely suggests that you aren't familiar with policy.  If you want people to take you seriously, it's important that you be aware of that distinction.
 * Finally there's the issue of BLP. Based on my reading of WP:BLP, the policy applies to people, not organisations.  Sure, the broader principles should apply, but just as you shouldn't pretend that guidelines are policy, you should be more circumspect about what you claim that policies say.
 * If you think you're dealing with a serious issue, bear in mind that you need to convince people, not bully them. You need to have a conversation.  If you're absolutely right, but come across in this sort of a manner, no one is going to take you seriously.  If you're correct, there's no need to pick fights.  If you just want to pick fights, find another venue.  All the best.  Guettarda (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guetterda for explaining things. I did find Skomorokh very combative in the way s/he stated things here and also at OrangeMarlin's talk page about this. And for the record, I misunderstood Skomorokh and thought s/he was saying that the category itself needed a ref to be applied. My apologies to you Skomorokh for this confusion which I caused. I think taking it to the talk page of the article is the best way to go and am glad this was decided. Again, thanks all for listening. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Talmud
I can't seem to find the previous AfD for this; could you point me to it? Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought there was one, but on checking it was a G6 - so maybe there was one, but maybe not. I've endorsed the prod instead as I don't know which speedy to apply. Verbal   chat  22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a speedy that directly applies, other than mebbe a foolish admin taking IAR too far. Prodded should do it fine; I'm going to leave the guy a warning since he's been told off for this sorta thing before. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi,

I had contact with you through my edits to the Foo Fighters page (HIV denial section).

Please leave my edit as it is until the reliability board can assess my submission.

Also what area of study is your PHD in?

Mfl1992 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, the area of my PhD is mathematical physics and computer science. I did study philosophy previously, though more as an interest now (philosophy of QM is occasionally touched on in my research). Did you see the link to the foo fighters own site I left over at RSN? I'm a fan of the foo fighters so was a bit disappointed when I first read this, but anyone can be mislead. Verbal   chat  12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems they either do support that organisation, it is a shame that they are perpretuating what seems to be false premises regarding the connection between HIV/AIDS

Hmm nonetheless they are a good band. It seems that source was considered reliable by the RS board:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FOO_FIGHTERS_HIV.2FAIDS_denialism

I will see if I can dig up some quotes but otherwise I am content to leave it be.

Regards

Mfl1992 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I believe the anonymous IP is a sock of someone. Knows too much to be a simple IP anonymous editor. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia (Welcome-page) - gives me a nice feeling! BR, Tom T.pienn (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility
The log says your delete took place within 2 minutes. I also thought the tone (and the dismissive quotemarks) in your 'a "survey" is not good evidence of anything' unscientific and rather rude - whether or not you agree with the important role of patient surveys in improving healthcare. Sam Weller (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on all points. Are you seriously suggesting I should have left unreferenced percentages in the article? Surveys rate just above anecdote on the hierarchy of evidence - and that's only the good ones! The quotemarks were to highlight the fact that there was no source, and the evidence comment is true. I fail to see why you're so worked up about it. Verbal   chat  17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I ask you to stop following me around and vandalizing my contributions. Do it now Please. DasV (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:VAND Verbal   chat  08:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is/was no copywrite violation on the page you blocked and you know it as it was explained in the dicussion. It is simple malicious mischief on your part. This behavior is ruining Wikipedia, and is a perfect example as to why it cannot be accepted by authorities. You may block me at your pleasure ... I leave you to your contemporaries. DasV (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the discussion to which you are referring? Many thanks, Verbal   chat  08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why of course Verbal. The discussion regarding Fe Fi Foe Comes, remember my article that you blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasV (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What discussion? There is nothing on the talk page. Could you add a link to the article talk page to this discussion, or simply explain there why this isn't a copyright violation according to WP rules. Thanks. Verbal   chat  13:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind striking your bomb test comment please, as it's just continuing DasV's PoV pushing, and giving him another reason to continue against WP:TALK. thanks alot. Khu kri 11:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been away. I'll look into it now. Verbal   chat  13:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but there is. :)

 * soapbox warning* I think there is a need for it. If we don't acknowledge those who have things to teach us, there is less incentive for them to do it, and (especially younger) folk won't have important hints that they should listen up. :)  I didn't know there was a separate wp:MEDRS, that is useful to know.  Thanks.  (belated signature) sinneed (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How about some help
Any editing help you can give me on my additions to Gary Schwartz would be greatly appreciated. I am no master of words. I write like I talk. It is the best I can do. I have been told no one really talks like that. I am sorry but I do. I am not sophisticated. I am just a grunt puzzler with an enormous amount of curiousity about eldritch stuff. I am also a very slow learner. What the hell is a template? I am certaintly out of the computer loop.Kazuba (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE
A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Email reply ping. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping
I appreciate it.Ward20 (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi et al.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I think he's allowed his statement on his own user talk page, but I certainly don't know about or care about the huge volume of bureaucratic Wikipedia rules. I actually was surprised by the decision to indef Martinphi, because I have worked with him on a couple of articles to make it balanced. I did so because I was trying to find a way to get his favorite paranormal articles some semblance of NPOV. I think his obsession with SA (and vice versa) weren't very useful. Martin did it with a certain level of civility, which is nice, but in fact, he had an agenda. SA has an agenda (closer to my own), but does it with a higher level of uncivility than even I'm willing to undertake. Oh well. Anyways, we have lots of things to accomplish on this project, and I hope we can proceed without another huge kerfuffle with regards to pseudoscience. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For future reference: Miscellany for deletion. I rather suspect that the community would just shrug at that statement, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too bothered about the content of the page (I think it's silly, etc), but I thought it was standard to replace the text of a banned user with that notice. However, I've placed the banner at the top for now. I think there was a pretty recent MfD anyway. I'm only semi-interested in this policy stuff. Thanks for your notes. Verbal   chat  18:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too interested in this matter from the start. But what did this have to do with User:jossi?  I noticed that Martin made some sort of comment about it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hnh, I never knew that - thanks. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? I missed the Jossi link. Apart from the odd interaction I only know him from his Register fame (shh, OM) Verbal   chat  13:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User page deletion
I was just testing creating a user profile - and inadvertently created an undesirable information trail in the edit history, and page deletion seemed the only way to get rid of it. Wish I could have deleted this information without external (admin) help. For sure will stay w/ Wikipedia ;) T.pienn (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience list
What exactly are you trying to do here? --Elonka 09:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove my username from your list, as it is disruptive. Verbal   chat  15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

link suggestion
Hi, you added a "disputed" with link to Elonka's listing of herself as Uninvolved, but the question has been raised as to how your link supports your assertion that her "Uninvolved" status is disputed. As the link leads to a post by Elonka, I have to say its not the best link for there. I suggest this which is a perm link to that section, which is what I believe you were trying to accomplish. IF not, please let me know what you were trying to do, and I will help if I can. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm crap with diffs. I wanted to add a ref to the section I started and the section above, plus the discussion on the List of PS page, but a close friend has been hospitalised so I've not had much time to do anything. Sorry, and thanks for asking. If you could fix I'd be most grateful. Verbal   chat  15:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOMORE
A discussion was still taking place regarding the fate of this page. I'm reverting your move until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Please participate in that discussion rather than ignoring it and performing the action of your choice. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:00, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion has taken place several times and the consensus has always been the same. Verbal   chat  08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let it take place one more time. You don't decide when enough is enough. Besides which you haven't done much discussing yourself aside from a couple of one-liners. If you feel strongly enough to enact your position, you should also be willing to defend it in a discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:04, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have ownership issues. Verbal   chat  08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that is easier than actually responding to my statements, yeah. <font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 08:10, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Berwyn Mountain UFO Incident
Thanks for helping stamp on the self-advertising of the Conwy UFO group which they keep adding to this entry. I have reverted it several times, and it must now come under the 3RR. What do you think we should do if they put it in again? Can we have them blocked, as I have warned? If so, how? Skeptic2 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

humour
Verbal, re "I am British and I find the lack of a sense of proportion and humour offensive. Sheesh.". Sorry if you were offended, as I certainly meant no offence. If the woad issue is a touchy one (and I wasn't aware that it was), I'll refrain from using it. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, i wasn't offended at all by your comment (well, the homeopathy bit - but that is true thanks to the idiot prince). Sorry I wasn't clear in my overcautious complaint about llm. I think injecting humour is important, and huge overreactions like the complaint made show a bad faith on the complainants part. Verbal   chat  07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Verbal, I was a bit concerned that I'd stumbled across some line that I'd not been aware of. Homeopathy is just something I don't think is of any benefit, but if others wish to use it, it doesn't much matter to me.  (And a secret that must never get out (especially to OM): my wife bought a homeopathic solution for ear pain and she said it worked.  I'm thinking it was the topical analgesic that was in it, but it did make her feel better).
 * Re woad, I could point to so many strange actions by my Norse and German ancestors that would make Druid rituals seem tame by comparison.
 * I'm afraid I just don't get LLM. Oh well, as Kurt Vonnegut noted, "so it goes".  Cheers!  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi, Thanks for the welcome. I have made a couple of edits on the CFS page I know, I hope I am not being too forward with my comments and edits. But I think I will back off that page for a while it seems to be a bit controversial at present. Anyway thanks for the welcome. Best wishes InBreed good rude (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to take a look at the article Nazi occultism?
I am not leaving the project after all, although I am still highly critical about it. What made me consider the issue at Discrimination against atheists so offensive was the whole deletionist attitude of several editors (and admins): I've spent hours writing a balanced account of the Rob Sherman controversy, the whole question of whether Bush senior actually said that atheists shouldn't be considered as citizens. The material was originally in the Persecutions by Christians article, then in Separation of church and state in the United States, then in Discrimination against atheists and now it has hopefully come to rest at Robert I. Sherman. But the problem is - if I hadn't merged the material there myself it would have been deleted and the hours I've worked on it would have been wasted. What does Wikipedia expect from its editors? To continually watch over their contributions for all eternity? It weren't new editors or vandals who deleted valid content - it were experienced editors and administrators in a rather heated debate. I can only see that they have never reflected about their attitude. This is not an encyclopaedia, but a battleground, in despise of a guideline that says otherwise: wp:not. But would it be better if I left? I am still undecided about that. However, I certainly can't stand it when rather some people, who might not even be able to notice the difference between James Herbert and Hans Mommsen, criticise my work, see the recent discussion about Nazi occultism. I actually would like to know what you think about that. Zara1709 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll have a look soon but I'm a bit distracted by real life right now. However, I don't know much about Nazi occultism apart from the popular conception - which I think is probably a myth (or exaggerated). All the best, Verbal   chat  15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with
WP:CONSENSUS policy. Thank you. 212.200.240.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Please stop being a WP:DICK. You will be blocked if you continue like this. Verbal   chat  18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hello Verbal. Last August you tagged a certain editor's user page with the identity of one of his alternate accounts. The original account is not blocked, and the guy removed this comment from his page. Currently at ANI there is a guy posting rather silly things (not abusive, yet) that seems to be the same editor. (Civility complaint for being called a 'sucker'). There is no major problem, besides avoidance of scrutiny, and wasting space on admin noticeboards. In your opinion, is it time to file a case at WP:SPI, or not? EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie
Thanks for being a voice of reason. I don't mean to let people push my buttons like that, however I despise being talked down to. I love Hugh Laurie too, but it's a BLP and it can't just make so many assumptions. Thanks for fixing the ref. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Im terribly sorry
sorry bout tht tht was my friend being an idiotSuicidelove100 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wessex Institute of Technology
I've spoken to N-g-Efrat and his new sockpuppet, and put them both on final warnings. If the behaviour continues, any of us can go to AN/I and ask for a ban. I'm only online say 3 days per week, so may not be able to step in when the next uncited addition is made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're a gent.  Verbal   chat  16:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

TY for the vandalism-zap
I appreciate it. :)sinneed (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the thanks. Verbal   chat  18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Bauer
Thanks for the hand at Henry H. Bauer. I suspect that User:A5 misunderstands "genetic mutations" as pop culture "genetic mutants" or similar, rather than the technical meaning of it, which is exactly what Bauer seems to mean: that the genomes of individuals of African descent have mutated under the influence of (?environment? something else?) to produce factors that make their carriers test false positive for HIV. Which, according to Bauer, does not really exist. God, and it was Darwin's birthday yesterday. How sad. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't see how the edit could be "libellous", or even break BLP. My comment on their talk page was to warn that they should avoid that language whether it is warranted or not, in their opinion. Might be a COI issue, or just another denialist issue. I don't really see the problem though. Verbal   chat  18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure ...
Are you sure you did not mean G1? j/k. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that full stop is rather a nonsense. :) Verbal   chat  18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My dispute with Fyslee
Hi Verbal, you mentioned here the possibility of a misunderstanding. If you still think that's a possible explanation I would be grateful if you could point me to what it could consist of. Fyslee is insisting that everything is a misunderstanding on my side, due to my insufficient command of English, but I can see no indication that this is correct and he is not making any effort to convince me.

I have decided to make this a matter of principle: Acceptable outcomes are 1) someone convincing me of a genuine, concrete misunderstanding (not a vague "misunderstanding", using the word as a euphemism for "something better not looked at too closely"), or 2) retractions and an apology from Fyslee, or 3) Fyslee being warned by an admin that he will be blocked if he repeats this behaviour. If at any stage it becomes clear that none of these will be reached I will unwatch all health related articles and stop editing any contentious articles that I have no strong interest in.

If you wish you can read this as a promise, but I would be really obliged if you could instead help me resolve this situation. If I don't hear from you or from Shoemaker's Holiday soon I will have to escalate this matter again. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied by email, will try to do something soon. Verbal   chat  21:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How sensual
You can edit my megavitamins any day. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Awwww. Will you be my L-gulunolactone oxidase?
 * On a more serious note, since the articles and discussions at megavitamins and orthomolecular are pretty much the same, and since the former is clearly the bulk of the latter's philosophy, I think the articles should be merged. What do you think? Is there a good reason NOT to merge them? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of one right now, but I haven't actually read more than the lead and a few diffs. And it's bedtime. See you tomorrow you lovely guys you. Sleep tight ;) Verbal   chat  21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Astrology
See Talk:Astrology. Thanks. -Stevertigo 23:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Livingstone Tower
No worries! This article seems to be attracting a lot of (presumably Strathyclyde) students; I guess it's inevitable some vandalism will slip in. Cheers, This flag once was red propagandadeeds 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Interest conflict
Hi, I am a Wikipedia newbie. You recently removed two references I added (in Bloch sphere and Root system). I know it is a conflict of interest when I link to my own essays. But what is the right way to do this if I think that these links might be relevant? Should I suggest them on the talk page? Marozols (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, suggesting them on the talk page is the way to go. All the best, Verbal   chat  20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New username
We can expect a new username for a tendentious editor after this. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghostly Talk
Can I please get some advice on what needs to be done to establish notability on the Ghostly Talk article? I have read all the documentation and feel we are meeting that in the article. Any help would be appreciated. Gtscottl  06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, what you need to add are more references that show this talk show is notable - things like newspaper/news coverage (several local or one national newspaper would help). Coverage in any magazines (outside of niche ghost-oriented mags) such as reviews or discussions referencing the show, or even the presenters. References for the notability of the guests isn't important. Basically more refs about the show and the presenters (in the context of the show). I think it's a nice article and will probably change my !vote if you can find a few more of these things. Do you have a reference to listener figures? Is there an article that says you're the highest rated local ghost talk show or something similar? :) All the best, Verbal   chat  12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ear Candling
I noticed that you removed without discussion a section of the ear candling page. Please put your reasoning in the discussion page for that article. Treedel (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with Editing
I was editing on the Conium page and tried to add an external link to a web site as a reference. It looks right, in that there is a highlighted number (#1) after the sentence, and if you click on it, it goes to the correct web page. However, #1 in the reference list is a different reference. Somehow my added reference didn't get a new number. I have successfully been adding citations to journal articles, but this has got me stymied. Also I would like to add tables and possibly flow charts of information to some articles, but when I looked at the instructions in the editing tutorial I was completely mystified. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you left off the tags. I fixed it in two stages, which you can see by clicking on the history tab at Conium. The server interprets a URL between single brackets as an external link; the default display is a number, but if you add a space and then the title it will display that text instead. Like so: displays as, and Google displays as Google. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally missed this, thanks for answering Eldereft. Verbal   chat  22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube cat abuse incident
WP:NOT states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". Exactly what is the historical notability of this 14-year old's error? Perhaps you can enlighten me? Mass copying of an AP news release != notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful - dont put words in my mouth
I m not advocating for homeopathy or against. I made it clear. Dont predend you did not hear it. --JeanandJane (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, and I'm not interested. Is this a threat? It appears to be. I suggest you apologise. Verbal   chat  17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like one to me. I wonder if the user knows you're a tool of the worldwide Big Pharm conspiracy against the high-quality science that supports homeopathy. Did you get your check today?  Hehehehehe.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got to send me the number of your agent - Big Pharm told me they do not need any stinking physicists, so I have had to argue for free that WP articles should fairly represent the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, they pay me in sugar pills. I put some in my coffee and sell the rest on ebay as a cure-all, which creates a rather unusual conflict of interest. By the way, the cricket is going well today. Verbal   chat  19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Contact hyperthermia
Dear Verbal,

I´ve seen by your description you are a physicist. It would be a great opportunity if the article I was writing could count with your contribution. Physical medicine as contact hyperthermia has been designed and thought by physicists. I am a user of this technique, and I heal people with it. So I thought English speakers could also benefit of this healing knownledge. But I do not know physics so deeply. Why don´t you edit the physical information by yourself? I think it would be a brilliant contribution. This type of device is based on electromagnetism and on the condensor field. I am sure you will know more than me on this issue. Best Regards, --María09 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't something I've looked at, I'll try to swing by soon. Assorted talk page watchers (I'm so gratified to have some) can feel free to look too, I'm sure. Most are experts by some definition :) Verbal   chat  20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHYS
Hi, I notice that you had some interest in physics. Might I interest you in joining WikiProject Physics?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
You are on the wrong side of the puddle, so I guess I can understand tagging that article instead of redirecting it. IoM is pretty huge, though, and I for a moment was shocked that there was not an already extant article covering it; then I found one. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Two 3RR warnings in a row
Wow. You must be pissing off the right people!!!! Well, now I'm back to watching Stormfront, which usually gives me hypertension. It's all your fault! As for the Golden Plates, I do my best to stay away from Mormon articles, since their adherents are just as tendentious and defensive as Scientologists. Maybe I'll just go back to watching Big Love, which is my educational source for all things Mormon. By the way, you might want to read Mountain Meadows Massacre, if you want to see a real POV Mormon article. No, I don't watch the article, because I'd just get more hypertension!!!!!! Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just read the the Mountain Meadows Massacre article again. It's not perfect, but it's a lot less POV, now that other editors have massaged the edits from COGDEN.  So, I might watch the article. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

STOP!
I am the user 169.244.121.148. that is why I created this account so the IP wont get blocked anymore retard. so quit bothering me!(if anything offended you I dont care) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikininja2.0 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want it unblocked then request an unblock, otherwise the talk page will be locked. Verbal   chat  19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I am sorry for making personal attacks at you it will never happen again, I was just trying to explain something.Wikininja2.0 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suggest that if you are serious about editing WP, then you should probably abandon this account and start a new one, and not vandalise any more pages. All the best, Verbal   chat  19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't show this editor is going to stop vandalizing, sorry. This editor edited out the 'm' for no specific reason, it was reverted as vandalizing by another editor. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Verbal, Thank you very much for your help. Since I am a newbie, you are right: there are a lot of things yet I have to learn from Wikipedia. I will read the links and try my best to improve them, following your comments. Thanks! Best Regards, --María09 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA
Hello, as a regular reader of the WQA forum I was wondering if you could explain your posting to the complaint by user:Catherineyronwode. I was just curious as to the reason for supporting a block against this user and would like it if you posted your reasoning on the thread, or if your posting was a joke, could you please explain that on the thread? Thank you in advance. The  Seeker 4   Talk  13:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident
An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals
Hey Verbal, how's it going? Well, you sent me a warning, and I read it carefully. I didn't know I created the mistake, because I thought when someone put BUEY in the article, they were vandalizing (I didn't know what BUEY meant =/). Also, at the end of the article, it said "BUEY!" which made me think BUEY was a sort of vandalism. Take time to realize that I have meant no harm. After all, I do enjoy being corrected, so I thank you for your correction towards me. Have a good one.

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:brown; background-color:gold; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Study Kaji (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all.

Study Kaji (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it was you that added BUEY (diff)... So by reverting you I removed the vandalism and the changes between International/Commonwealth English and American English. All the best, Verbal   chat  14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Something must of went wrong, I am serious, I didn't add "BUEY" =/ I was certainly trying to remove it. I don't know what's going on, but I'm not lying, please don't take it like that. I'd admit if I vandalized, and I didn't. I was trying to remove it, although it doesn't show in the revision. This is what happened: I went into the article, saw In(BUEY)Law (Which I thought was supposed to be there) and the I scrolled down to the bottom of the page and saw, "BUEY!". This made me think that In(BUEY)Law was vandalism off the spot. So I removed it; unfortunately, that's not right here =/. What I might have done was added In(BUEY)Law back, because I figured it wasn't vandalism, but this is a faded memory, so I don't know if I really did or not. Lastly, that was my second edit and patrol for vandals, so maybe I messed it up a bit >.< I wish I could prove I didn't add BUEY, so please take time to realize I'm not a vandal, you can even see my logs, I've removed a few vandalism and gave a warning =o. Oh, BTW, this isn't a shared account, although my two sisters have a wikipedia account on their own computers. Have a good one Study Kaji 11:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Study Kaji (talk • contribs)

Programming
I see you program. What do you program (Java, C++, etc), and what kind of programming do you do? I'm learning Java, currently level 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Study Kaji (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Completing the closure of a withdrawn AfD
Hi — would you mind completing your closure of the withdrawn Articles for deletion/Carl W. Gottschalk by adding withdrawn ~ to the top and  to the bottom of the AfD page? I'd do it myself but I participated in the case so it looks better for someone else to do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, someone else got to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had noticed it had been withdrawn so I added the tags to the article. I didn't realise the nom hadn't tagged the AfD as such. Thanks, Verbal   chat  09:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement page
Please read the top of the page before you tell me to go elsewhere or to try DR. This is what it says:


 * This is a message board for requesting and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if a user is in violation of an ArbCom decision. Please make your comments concise and Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page.

As I am requesting enforcement and discussing enforcement of an ArbCom decision, that is the page to post on.


 * The case has already been ruled on. The question here is whether they engaged in conduct that breached that ruling.

--KP Botany (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it is the appropriate venue. You haven't tried other things first, so running to AE as a first point of call seems unwarranted. There is no conduct that breaks the ruling, and invoking the homeopathy case seems to suggest you feel that homeopathy is part of the article. Verbal   chat  11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel I should add 2 things: a, I didn't mention the disagreement on the article so I don't understand why your reply said I was bringing it up; b, despite our disagreement about the relevance of homeopathy on the AB page, I think you're a very good editor. Verbal   chat  11:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content at Chemtrail conspiracy theory
I believe you have removed content which should not be removed...removing valid links is not cleanup.Smallman12q (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:EL. I didn't realise they've only just been added, but these links do not contribute to the article. Please justify on the article talk page, thanks. Verbal   chat  18:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'll put a underconstruction template.Smallman12q (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I restored most of the links...I don't see how qualify for WP:ELNO? Perhaps we should have this discussion on the article talk page.Smallman12q (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Over the top
Hi Verbal, I think your recent comment concerning ScienceApologist is way over the top. If anything is "childish and pathetic", then it is 1) ScienceApologist's belief in a scientific TRUTH that must be fought for in precisely the same way that others fight for the supremacy of their god or the political independence of a piece of land, and 2) the number of supporters he has among people who should know better. His behaviour and that of his supporters actually makes me suspect that there is a grain of truth in postmodernist ideas about scientific truth as entirely socially constructed. In an ideal world that would be bullshit; but with so many scientists here treating science as if it was just another belief system (except that, of course, unlike all the others it is the right one), all appeals to the scientific method as the reason for the superiority of science get the status of empty rhetorics.

I don't know where this nonsense comes from; I am not experiencing it anywhere outside Wikipedia. My guess is that it's due in part to the bad influence of strong financial interests in the medical sciences, and in part to the absurd attacks on science in the US and people's tendency to become similar to their enemies.

Another reason I am not losing faith in the state of science is that the "pro-science" editors so often need to misrepresent scientific sources or use non-scientific sources. It suggests that the scientific community is working properly, and that opinions are not routinely being published under the guise of science merely because they happen to agree with the opinions and tastes of a majority of scientists.

One thing that is great about mathematics is that when you learn it at university level, you learn to be wrong. For several years, you have to write a dozen or so proofs a week. Often they turn out to be wrong, no matter how much you believed in them. Good scientists are wrong all the time, and they are not ashamed of it. I can't believe "ScienceApologist" has ever been wrong about anything; if so, I am sure it was someone else's fault. His tastes and beliefs are always supported by science because they are shared by every right-thinking scientist.

If this incident of a prominent serial disrupter of Wikipedia being treated like any other topic-banned editor leads to ScienceApologist leaving the project, then that's actually the best result possible. And he can't even complain, since driving people away is one of his own stated objects. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with everything Hans says above. I'm disturbed by your rallying to the defense of an editor that ArbCom have finally successfully identified as a disruptive POV editor and treated accordingly. Please look at the big picture of the disruption caused by the editor and the violations of NPOV that he causes and encourages, and don't get lost in the petty details of whether minor appropriate edits breach a ban. The project needs either a major change of approach from such editors, or their absence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your revision of Graph isomorphism
Hi,

You could not find any better algorithm for practical usage in organic chemistry. Why you deleted only one possible algorithm?--Tim32 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had concerns about the reference and the utility of the addition to the article. Please feel free to justify it on the talk page and reinsert if you get support. Thanks for asking, Verbal   chat  16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Google scholar. Thanks! --Tim32 (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
You reverted asking for a talk page discussion first; this discussion is already present, however, and no response was given to the numerous problems with the older version (science fiction? Alternative medicine is synonymous with pseudoscience (no source said this)?). Please don't go back to this very flawed version. hgilbert (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course! How true! Some AltMed is beyond reproach. Verbal   chat  21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources have characterized it as pseudoscience? Put it on the list with appropriate nuance. The Wedgewood walls of that article do not need another tempest. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pro-fringe?
So, I guess I am confused. You are saying that because I want to follow NPOV and include verifiable information about a pseudoscientific use of a non-pseudoscientific subject in said subject's article, then I am - in your book - a pro-fringe editor. But you also say that you are in agreement with my position about the inclusion of such a pseudoscientific use in the article. Does that make you a pro-fringe editor as well? If yes, then I am happy to be in your company. If not, then what's the distinction between us? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pro-science. If there is a PS angle to any article, and I agree wholeheartedly with you that homeopathy is PS, then the science should also be included. The science should be given the most prominent weighting, except on certain articles where it takes second place, as per our policies. I termed you pro-fringe as you are pro- the inclusion of fringe topics and sympathetic towards them. If you dispute this then I'm sorry if you feel I have mischaracterised you, but this is the impression given by your edits. The situation on AB is different. It is the exclusion of relevant material for spurious reasons that is the problem. Saying that there is no AB in the preparation is not an attack, unless we say this is why it doesn't work - it is a simple fact which is relevant to the article, and irrelevant to homeopaths as they claim it does not matter (so long as you bang it on some straw). Verbal   chat  12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have mischaracterized me. Allow me to explain. At AB - for instance - while I am in favor of the inclusion of the homeopathic usage of the plant, it is not for any spurious reason - such as the undue promotion of the efficacy of homeopathy. I am and have always been in favor of including the fact that there is no scientific evidence for its efficacy, since we have a source specifically discussing AB which verifies this. Originally, I was not in favor of including some amalgamation of the "zero molecules" statement simply because the source being used was discussing homeopathy in general and not specifically discussing AB. Using that source to say anything specific about AB was clearly an OR violation and using it to say something in general about homeopathy was tangential to the subject of the article. However, now we have a source which is specifically discussing AB and at least one form of its homeopathic usage which is unlikely to contain any molecules of the original plant after dillution. With this source, I don't have any issue including the information, provided that it faithfully represents the source information.


 * Now then, above you say that it is "the exclusion of relevant material for spurious reasons that is the problem." Consider your statement and then please consider this with a most open and reasonable mind: SA was (and still seems to be) in favor of excluding any mention of homeopathy in the article regardless of the sources because he feels that homeopathy is bunk, and bunk shouldn't be mentioned in any articles except articles about bunk. Is not that a spurious reason to exclude relevant material? Do you agree with this point of view? It certainly goes beyond "pro-science", so how would you characterize SA as an editor?


 * I hope you see now that I am both pro-science and pro-fringe; as long as the information is relevant and verifiable to a reliable source, I say, "Include it." Maybe that makes me an "inclusionist". Maybe that makes me pro-NPOV. Maybe that may make me seem "sympathetic" to one point of view if I see that knowledge about that point of view is being excluded for spurious reasons. However you wish to describe me, I hope now you can see that it is unfair and clearly inaccurate to describe me as a pro-fringe editor. I am so much more than that. Wikipedia represents an audacious attempt to gather the sum total of human knowledge. To best acheive this herculean goal, I am pro-knowledge. I am pro-Wikipedia. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was/am really hoping to get a honest response from you on this. I think we have some good dialogue happening here and would like to foster it further if you are willing. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that you have not continued this discussion. That's totally fine. If ever in the future you wish to pick this up again, I promise to remain open and willing. Thanks again, Verbal. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry missed it with some other things. Bit busy right now, thanks. Verbal   chat  14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Take your time. I'm rather busy at the moment as well. That said, I am very interested in picking this up again. I think it has already proven to be quite fruitful. So, when you can, I am around. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

White flag
I can respect your opinion about the POV tag, but your language in this last edit summary was not cool, brother. I had hoped that we've moved past these inaccurate and uncivil personal attacks. I had thought that we'd reached an understanding here at your talk page. Do you think we can lay down our guns and agree to some sort of truce or do you intend to keep mischaracterizing and verbally abusing me? In the name of goodwill and good faith, I sincerely am hoping that you opt for the former. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I saw his user box too and got a good laugh from your comment. Take care, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

salutogenesis ... please advise
please advise on the salutogenesis talk page about what needs to be done ... I'm not certain what you have in mind with these tags. Pgm8693 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked for help from WP:FTN. One problem is that 3 of 4 references are all from the same person, more 3rd party sources need to be added, and the last is a blog - which is not a WP:RS. Verbal   chat  09:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright notices
You haven't put the notice at yet. Just after mine on another editor's article. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ****. I think I did, but I think it hit some 500 errors and all went SNAFU. Thanks, Verbal   chat  11:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. I'm an idiot. Thanks, Verbal   chat  11:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I offended you in any way with the observations I made, I apologize. Spring12 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

notice
Verbal, I'll let it pass this time, because I'm tired of dealing with this kind of idiocy, but the next time you refactor my comments on an administrative page, I'll report you ANI, and do my best to get someone to block you. If you can't respect me, that's your damned business, but if you can't respect the process then you need to take a wikibreak. -- Ludwigs 2 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do whatever you like. I moved the comments to the appropriate venue. In future as you have a problem I'll ask for an admin or steward to do it. Yours, Verbal   chat  20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can do that, or you could simply ask me to do it. I don't claim to know the proper procedures for all of wikipedia, and I'm usually responsive to polite requests.  Frankly, the biggest problem I have with you, Verbal, is that you treat me like a vandal when I'm trying to make serious and good faith points.  so try a little AGF and stop trying to jump on me with both feet every time I cross your path.  we'll get a lot farther a lot faster, with a lot less drama.  can you do that?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply point out that you are being disruptive. If you want me and others to stop doing that, then stop being disruptive. I don't have a problem with you, but there is a problem with some of your recent edits. Verbal   chat  08:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * well you can say that, but a simple examination of your recent activity on that page shows that your primary activities on the article involve reverting other editors' edits, and your primary activities on the talk page involve flat, unexplained claims that some edit you don't like isn't supported, and accusations that other editors are being disruptive. there is precious little you do there that's constructive, though that may have been different in the past. if you have a problem with some of my recent edits, then please follow the appropriate BRD process through to the end, or if you're not interested in discussing the issue, then don't revert.  otherwise you're being the disruptive element.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A simple examination of my editing history, recent or otherwise, will show no such thing. Stooping to personal attacks is not helpful, and is a further example of disruption. Please desist. None of your accusations hold water. This topic is now closed. Verbal   chat  21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

LSL
Hi Verbal you have removed by edit on the Lifestyle Lift page calling it an ad. I believe a description of a particular procedure cannot be called an ad. Also this is not described from the parent website, it is defined from an independant third party customer review site. Can you call out what is it that needs to be called out to make the article right? Belmond (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Belmond
 * I said it was advertising, not an ad. I'll take another look, but try justifying it on the article talk page. Thanks, Verbal   chat  09:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I copyedited the section to make it less advertising like, but then realised that it is redundant with the next section so removed it again. I suggest you try to integrate anything extra into the S proc section. However, please have a look at WP:MEDRS and make sure your sources comply. Thanks for talking about this! Verbal   chat  09:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Verbal LSL claims that it is not like the S proc, so ideally it is the LSL proc that has to be retained and the S Proc would have to be removed. Thus it is the S proc that is the redundant of the 2. Also thanks for the WP:MEDRS link. Belmond (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Belmond

Request for Counsel
Thank you for your welcome, and for your offer of help, I could indeed need some. I have run into my first editing conflict on Wikipedia, and could use some counsel, whether my assessment of the situation is right or wrong, and what I could do to mitigate the conflict, or what course I could or should take. I already asked another wikipedian for help in this matter, but I received no answer yet, so I copy the question for you.

"I'm a new member on Wikipedia, and think I have run into a problem, well maybe not a real problem, but a new stituation I am not used to. Since you seem to share some of my viewpoints, from what I could see on your page, I decided I ask for counsel on a matter you seem to have experience in. I have stumbeled recently on some pages named "Sciece and the Bible", "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts" and eventually "Qur'an and Science". As far as I can see all three articles suffer from problems. While "Science and the Bible" is honestly trying to maintain an objective outlook on Science in the Bible, the other two articles are increasingly fraught with what I consider pseudoscientific positions without accurately [and unmistakably] identifying them as such. The last article is the most problematic, because it has the neutral title "Qur'an and Science" without - in my opinion - covering the topic in a neutral fashion.

I tried to improve on the last article, and have run into my first conflict on wikipedia. My - sourced - and in my opinion relevant and counterbalancing content was removed a few times by another editor, with hardly mentioning any reasons and not by any means satisfactory reasons (to me). I want to refrain from getting snarky and don't wan't to get into an edit war. This is *not* meant as a request for mediation, I just want to hear an independent opinion and some hints on that matter from a person that has experience with such problems. I hope to read from you soon."

Perhaps you could give me some hints as well.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be glad about any reply.


 * Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to reply then forgot. I'm very busy right now - the best idea would be to take your concerns to WP:FTN, and I'll watchlist the pages too. Verbal   chat  16:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll do that,


 * Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Viridae
You may wish to be aware of Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV. Hipocrite (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, nice. What a mess. Verbal   chat  07:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturopathy
Thanks for warm welcome, I appreciate your condensation of the rules of Wikipedia. I am a naturopathic medical student and have little time to hunt around. Again, thanks for the welcome and the useful 'how-to' inclusion. I'll probably go to your email whenever I am unsure of what to do.

On to some business. I see what I did, and why it shouldn't be done. So I looked into the source that was cited in the sentence that I changed. Two big problems: one, is that the source itself is sparse in its desription and biased; two, the source is mischaracterized in the wiki sentence.

My question: What stops people from citing awful sources? And what does one do about it, once the wiki statement has been 'cited' for authenticity?

Thanks again for your help and greetings, jmstoic Jmstoic (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this as you didn't add a section header. We use WP:MEDRS for medical information, and WP:RS generally. Unfortunately (depending on your POV) a lot of the MEDRS work on naturopathy is negative. If you think a source is mischaraterised then copy the sentence to a new section at the bottom of the talk page and say what you think is wrong with it. Out of interest, and unrelated to WP, why did you choose ND training rather than a more mainstream MD or equivalent? Or maybe you think it is mainstream and I've misunderstood (most of my alt med experiance is with homeopathy, which is clearly non-scientific and simply a placebo) Thanks, Verbal   chat  11:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the header info. I certainly agree with you that naturopathy is not mainstream.  Last I checked, the number of known ND's practicing in the US and Canada is roughly 4500.  I chose the ND over the MD for political and philosophical reasons.  ND's are trained (I can only speak for Bastyr University) to find and treat the cause of the disease.  MD's are trained to eliminate the symptoms of the disease.  Obviously, I am simplifying the philosophies, but I reasonate with ND teaching's more.  One of the biggest problems with naturopathy, regarding a positive characterization, is that the sheer number of modalities is overwhelming.  Naturopathic physicians are trained in, but do not always use, homeopathy (which is a real sticking point for some), physical medicine (adjustments, electrostim, hydrotherapy, ultrasound), IV therapy (in Washington), pharmacognosy, nutrition, minor surgery, counseling and on and on.  When asked, "What does a naturopath do?," even naturopaths have a difficult time conveying all the different ways in which we work.  And there is a whole lot of disagreement within the profession as well, regarding philosophy and preferred treatments.  I am happy to answer any questions I can.Jmstoic (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Message
It wasn't a joke edit. It was very serious.

Adults. Grown adults -- supposedly ones with a formal education -- believe in Homeopathy. If that's not serious, I honestly don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.117.58 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I know it's stupid, but we all do stupid things. I thought the joke was a bit nicer than calling you a vandal - it was my joke. Verbal   chat  20:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of fun to be had in poking fun at people who believe in stupid things. Maybe with enough ridicule, they'll change. Logic and reasoning never seem to work. Can't blame a guy for trying a new approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.117.58 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not for you to decide the beliefs of others, they could always describe you as stupid etc. Just leave them and their beliefs be 81.153.104.100 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, science has clearly already done most of the work for me. :/ They could label me as stupid, but then I would be forced to retort by outliving them due to my use of effective medical care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.117.58 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Science and faith are separate and should be kept so, but more importantly, you have no right to scorn the beliefs of others, now stop 81.153.104.100 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have the right to scorn the beliefs of others, much as they have the right to scorn my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.117.58 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay everyone, playtime's over :) (Thanks WLU). This topic is closed here now, thanks Verbal   chat  15:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming
"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide.  ↜Just me, here, now … 20:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Thank you for the civil welcome: If only most regular wikipedeans were as civil, I would login in to my old account and contribute more often, as I used to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.185.125.83 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I can't take credit for the wording, as it's one of a set of welcome messages, and I just have to click a button to make it appear. Why not try logging in and editing again? (although to be honest it's a huge time sink and causes much stress!) Best, Verbal   chat  10:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You still take the time to look for new editors and welcome them, so the award is well earned. Larkusix (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

Welcome to WikiProject User Rehab
Thank You For Joining

Feel free to place this anywhere on your user page. To edit this box for improvement, Click here

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: May 2009
Hi, I'm responding to your two complaints at my talk page concerning: "assume good faith" and "WP:NPA". I'm puzzled as to why you claim these things, since I've just reread my posts and they appear to be compliant with the WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

I request that you link to diffs and list exactly which items in them (words, phrases, sentences) you claim violate WP:NPA policy, and provide the line citation of WP:NPA which prohibits each.

Your unexpected use of a Welcome/AGF template doesn't make it clear whether you also intended for the template to claim a guiderule infraction of WP:AGF, but if so, please also list those items and applicable WP:AGF line citations. (Please reply here to keep the dialog together) Milo 06:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have accused to established editors of vandalism incorrectly, and questioned the motivations of other editors. That is a failure of AGF and CIVIL. You should comment on edits, not editors, and only call edits vandalism when they fit wikipedias definition of vandalism. The reverting of some of your edits was not vandalism, and is well within policy. Verbal   chat  10:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "You have accused t[w]o ... editors of vandalism..."
 * You weren't specific, but I assume this issue was the basis of your original claim of WP:NPA.
 * "You have ... questioned the motivations of other editors .... " That's so vague that I'll need to see quotes in order to respond. Milo 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then read your edits again, the whole discourse is still on the talk page. If English is not your first language (I have no idea), then this may be a simple communication issue, but otherwise I have no interest in further discussion about this. My goal here is to improve the project. Just read the policies I made you aware of, and do not make accusations of vandalism again unless they are clearly vandalism, and not just edits you disagree with. If you need help understanding policies then please consider adopt a user.  Verbal   chat  20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "...unless they are clearly vandalism..." On this issue your problem is with community judgment as well as mine. I provided two citations which prove that the concept of content removal vandalism exists. Whether any of your future edits clearly match the citations would be determined in another venue. To avoid this possibility, I suggest that you not make future unselective large reversions containing good or uncontested items.


 * "You have accused t[w]o ... editors of vandalism..." No, I didn't. To make sure that you understood that it's vandalism only if one does it knowingly, next time, here's what I wrote using six sentences in two posts:
 * "...since you may not have understood what content removal vandalism is, you get a pass with a warning. Whatever you did or didn't do last time, this is about your future behavior. .... If however, you unselectively revert or don't provide an explanation, you will be committing and attempting to cover up content removal vandalism. Consider yourself warned.'"
 * A warning against future knowing behavior isn't a past or present accusation. Since I made no actual accusation, your WP:NPA charge goes away.


 * Without specific evidence, your "AGF and CIVIL" charges against me are dismissed. Consider yourself warned to not make future accusations lacking evidence, per WP:NPA.


 * To this point, all your charges (WP:NPA, AGF, CIVIL) have been answered as either lacking a factual basis, or lacking specific evidence. If we're almost done here, an apology would be nice. Milo 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect, and citing opinion rather than policy doesn't bolster your case. You have failed to observe AGF, CIVIL, and have made uncivil comments directed at specific editors in breach of NPA. Your defense fails, and the fact you feel the need to defend your actions and lawyer about them is telling. Do not continue to edit in this vane. Go to the links I provided for help, I am no longer interested and I have done more than is required of me. Please start to assume good faith of other editors, be civil, and do not make further personal attacks against specific editors or groups of editors. Thanks, Verbal   chat  16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Tempur-Pedic
Hello. The Popular Culture section of Tempur-Pedic was deleted last month, with a comment that the popular culture was trivial. As this brand is often referenced, usually as a parody of their commercials, I believe it is relevant to include this as part of the entry. I've modified the section to only include non-promotional mentions regarding the popularity of that wine glass test commercial, and userfy'd the rewrite in my sandbox. Editors have approved the new version. Thank you for bringing it to my attention Jilliant (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping
You have mail :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't reply? I'm seeing other, similar, problems and it's a shame. I wasn't aware of that one, and it sees to be a hard problem. Verbal   chat  21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy of the "Enemies List"
Thanks for tagging that for SD. I was hesitant to do so because it was in userspace and it was just a list... but I think you were right to tag it. Vicenarian <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(T · C) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"reputable websites or other forms of media"
Hey, I was a little confused by your message. I linked to a criticism of the NIH ruling, which you said violated the neutral point of view for Wikipedia, which may only refer to printed media, or to "reputable websites or other forms of media." Could you clarify what constitutes a reputable website? Thanks. (PS: If this is improper protocol for asking this type of question, please let me know. I'm pretty unfamiliar with the editing/message/etc procedure.)

Thanks! Jwdink (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS Verbal   chat  07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I looked at the wrong link (I had several tabs open). Editing while tired... Verbal   chat  07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Astrology
My key reference was to Westerners. The point being that these were Western scientists labeling Western astrology. It is simple prejudice or cultural arrogance to apply to all forms of astrology the conclusions or judgement based on research of one of its forms. I realise, that for some it is a mere detail. They would be 100% convinced of their view that all astrology is a pseudo-science at best. Even if the largest part of the world practices, fairly happily at that, other forms of astrology, why bother. However, for real scientists such a distinction would matter. Nothing can be said to be something until scientifically proven to be so. By the way, do you know about the differences between Western and Indian astrology? Do you know that one uses a constellation based zodiac while the other uses a caclulated zodiac seperated by almost one whole sign from the constellation, one focuse the reading on the ascending sign while the other uses the sun sign, one uses only visible bodies in the solar system while the other uses also the invisible bodies? I am sure you would agree with me that these are considerable differences between the two forms of astrology (key: Western astrology uses the latter option). Odin 85th gen (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nothing can be said to be something until scientifically proven to be so". Verbal   chat  20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, how can you say something (like Indian astrology) is disproven if it hasn´t been tested by scientists?Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation
I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any members?
You seem to understand that question found at AE911. And you add, that that question bothers you. Could you explain the question to me? Are you proposing the group could be assumed to have no members? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we should assume anything (number of members, or what they are). I'd like to see RS. I prefer talking about articles on the article talk pages. Verbal   chat  19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Out drunk
I've been out to the bar for a couple drinks. I missed the chance to get laid. So I'm back to Wikipedia and I just wanted to say, I love your patience. Thanks man. All the best. (quizzical look). I trust you understand this is all in good faith and I trust we'll figure a way to keep working at those articles which are are currently at the heart of our Spirit. --CyclePat (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just back from the pub myself. Time for some BBC Radio 4 comedy. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently enjoying The News Quiz, and the recent repeats of Saturday Night Fry and Delve were unexpectedly good. Verbal   chat  17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Proposal
I'd like your comments here. Faster you can respond the faster this mediation business gets over with. On Behalf of Mediation Cabal, Renaissancee (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

you are being discussed
at WP:WQA. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Verbal   chat  07:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

nurse anesthetist
I was wondering if you could swing by this page; I've tried updating it by adding new references and removing unsourced and pov material. Some of the language deliberately misstates what is said in the sources so I've tried to make it more accurate. Two users (Eclipse Anesthesia, 68.83.50.229 aka Aestiva)who I suspect are the same person have been reverting it repeatedly w/o any discussion, just claiming expertise and ownership...I saw that you had some experience with socks and was hoping you could give me your opinion or advice. Thanks Fuzbaby (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

good work
moved to user page. Thanks! Verbal  chat  22:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Frei Hans
This guy is still flippantly accusing us both of being vandals/sockpuppets, despite being asked by both you, me and others. I'm thinking of taking this to WP:WQA. Any thoughts? I'll let you know if/when I make the report. Papa November (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Report filed here Papa November (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This guy does not make flippant "accusations" and is sick of the pair of you visiting every page I edit in order to stir trouble. Do "either" of you ever create content or do you just visit user pages to create "edit wars" while trying to delete everyone else's genuine contributions? Frei Hans (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals
You may agree some food preparation cruel to animals, why remove the section?Xcwvgxb nryu (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

hello
hello there Micromonkey (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

why have you accused me of sockpuppetry? I was merely introducing myself to a more experienced member. Micromonkey (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't take it personally, let's wait to see what the SPI people say. Verbal   chat  17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

When will they have a result? Micromonkey (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson
I feel that someone removing the criticism section from the article is very problematic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Hi, I can take the credit for Micromonkey, and one of the IP addresses (I don't remember which one I will have to check the archives). I don't find it fair that Yinyanchin was blocked however:that user account is not a sockpuppet of mine. I found the user through the cold reading talk page, and recently realised that the page had been blanked, so I reverted it with another account. Admittedly, you are unlikely to believe me on this one, but I thought I should at least try to save others the consequences of my actions. Anyway, act on this as you will, all the best, Macromonkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.67.99 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this. I have notified the blocking admin and will let them handle it. You have done what you can. Thanks Macromonkey. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this BR. Verbal   chat  16:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-Wiki
I sent you an e-mail, thought I should let you know here as well in case that goes to an account you might otherwise not check regularly. &mdash;Whig (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, indeed I don't check it every day. I may not reply today. Yours, Verbal   chat  16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sent you a follow-up reply, but perhaps it would be best to continue discussion here if e-mail is not convenient. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy
For your enlightenment:


 * Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science


 * "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I logged on to find this yesterday, just as I was about to send you the link. I also like the Policeman/Community Support Officer one (a cheap, pretend policeman that should be banned...) "That's not police brutality, just "community support" brutality. Verbal   chat  08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at several of them. Those guys are really funny. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Discussion Page??
You recently made an edit on the Robert O. Young page. For almost a week a statement about the change I was going to make was on his discussion page. I asked all contributors if the change I was going to make was valid on the discussion page and then waited for 5 days. No one voiced an opinion. I made the change and then you reverted it, with no explanation on the discussion page. It is fair to ask that you would explain your edits on the discussion page before making them just as I adhere to the rules of decency towards other editors. I will make another post on the discussion page to bring up the issue of the redundant statements and find a solution that everyone is ok with. If you have an opinion on how it should be then please voice it on the discussion page so it might be known.Honest Research (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed your comment. You can take my revert as disagreement. Verbal   chat  17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Hunters
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''The addition you added to Ghost Hunters violates WP:BETTER. It should be expanded, to match the coverage in the body of the article, but single sentences, unsourced in the lede, need to stay out.'' Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. Have you read wp:lead? I'll add references if you insist, but they're in the body. Not needed. The "welcome to wikipedia" to a well established editor is highly offensive. Verbal   chat  16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this stupid? According to WP:BETTER, single stand-alone sentences should be avoided.  Rather than continually insert material which has been challenged, and willy-nilly attaching the is subject to criticism line, why not expand to more than one sentence, or incorporate into the existing paragraph(s).  As for appearing to be offensive or the purported personal attack, no offense meant, and I apologize if it appeared as such.  As for entering into discussion on the talk page, your only foray onto the talk page was thanks, I'll add it to that article too disregarding the contention made.  As for WP:NOTVAND, your edit could be considered disruptive, epecially since the Ghost Hunters article is under dispute, and changes should me proposed on the talk page first.  Again, you might need to read over WP:MOS, take a look at some FA's to see how the lede is structured.  And, as an added FYI, I appreciate your expertise in this (Seeing as you are a Ph.D), but imagine an abstract on a paper you submitted having a single, unsourced, contentious statement in it?  Bad style, yes? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the information is not the way to fix the problem you describe. We seem to have miscommunicated here, I hope we get along better now we've sorted it out. Verbal   chat  18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Graph isomorphism problem
You wrote "Reverted 1 edit by Tim32; Rvt disruption. Establish consensus please. (TW)" this is false! There was not consensus that any alternative approach is not possible! Aslo you should not remove Refimprovesect tag! As well as my messages from this your talk page! Sometime ago you said me "sorry" for similar actions (see, my talk page)!--Tim32 (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no agreement for the edits you are making. I'm beginning to think you should be topic banned.  Verbal   chat  15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Tim, I've never apologised for my actions involving you - indeed I have nothing to apologise for. Except, perhaps, I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Verbal   chat  16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But I'm beginning to think you should be topic banned, because you reverted all my different edits without discussion -- it looks like vandalism. Some time ago you said some words about me, and apologised for it (see my talk page). Now you said COI about me without any reason.--Tim32 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. Verbal   chat  20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, nobody can understand absurd reasons :( --Tim32 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't go down the road of making personal attacks again. My previous comment ("I think you've misunderstood what I wrote") refers to the fact that I have not apologised to you for my actions, which have all been proper. Your CoI is documented and known, and your disruption to those articles has been noted. Verbal   chat  11:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is personal attack? Is "absurd reasons" personal attack?--Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote here "I have not apologised to you for my actions", but following cited from my talk page:


 * You wrote here: "Your CoI is documented" -- Where had been documented my so-called "COI"?--Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote here: "your disruption to those articles has been noted" -- Yes, this so-called "disruption" was noted by you, for example. But you should prove this disruption. From my side I also noted your disruption to those articles. And I proved it, unlike you.--Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the apology, I'm sorry when anyone is upset, it's always something I would wish to avoid. However, I am not sorry for my actions, which were caused by you, only that they upset you. If you didn't make accusations of racism etc they wouldn't be needed. Verbal   chat  19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like word play only, but "call a spade a spade" ;) Also, I see you have nothing to say about my so-called "COI" and your disruption to those articles. You did not answer my questions.--Tim32 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know the answers, if not read through the talk page and archives at Graph isomorphism problem. You have a WP:COI and have been the subject of WP:WQA reports for your disruption. No more here please. Verbal   chat  19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whole story please
It is fine that you deleted what I had written to Shot Info but why did you not delete what he wrote? Did you give him a warning for simply attacking me?

By the way, I do think my comments about pseudoscience and frontier subjects is on topic and will be discussed more and more in the real world as people seek to find alternative approaches. What I am saying is that despite Shot's crack at me, I was trying to make an appropriate comment.

Please delete Shot Info's comment and I wil go away. Tom Butler (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * SI didn't link to an attack site that outs wikipedia editors, itself a violation of our policies. I have collapsed his comment, however it was a reply to another off topic comment that I have placed in a collapse box. Do not restore your comments as this will violate several policies. If you have a problem with this take it to ANI, though realise your behaviour will come under scrutiny. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I do not have time to escalate this, but please be aware that all you are allowing someone to attack me yet you have no proof that I am acting in bad faith. I attempted to keep my reply on topic. There are articles in Wikipedia which I consider attack articles yet I do not say you are an attacker ... or are you?


 * All you are doing is confirming my sense that this wiki is biased-- inside and out. Tom Butler (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You linked to an attack site which outs existing editors. Your comments were off topic - wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote your ideas or peddle your websites. If you have nothing to add to the project, then maybe one of the other sites you suggest will be more to your liking. I'm not interested, and over the last few days I've dealt with worse than you can come up with. Please consider this conversation over, I have nothing further to say. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RfAr
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Abd (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to believe that you've scored some sort of victory here Abd, but wikipedia doesn't work like that - it's not a battleground despite some peoples attempts. I don't really see why I've been added, but it's not important. I've done nothing wrong, unlike one person in particular. They made this bed though, and they're going to have to lie in it. The only thing I object to is the short circuiting of the community. If arbcom felt your behaviour would end up before them anyway then they should have been honest about it. I'm sure you'll agree that their accept reasons are rather lame - I could accuse WMC of being involved when he blocked me for editwarring, and by their reasoning they'd have to accept the case. I'm just sorry you don't realise quite how self destructive you've become. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed Abd's reply here as it is far to long and off topic, and hinders communication. Please refactor, Abd, and I might read it and reply. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Toxic Skies
Please see Articles for deletion/Toxic Skies. Fences &  Windows  20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Something that may amuse you.
It's only 1:51 long, I think. Sceptre (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Race and Crime"
Hello, I've just noticed that you recently deleted Wikipedia's article on Race and Crime. According to the relevant discussion pages, there were only two official votes regarding deletion, which came to no deletion and no consensus. The possibility of merging the article with Anthropological Criminology was discussed at greater length, but the article was simply deleted without any of its content being merged into another article. This does not appear to be consistent with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

As per Deletion_policy, it's my responsibility to try discussing this issue with you here before filing a request for deletion review. Considering the discussion on the Race and Crime talk page was about merging rather than deleting it, and the consensus was shaky at best even for a merge, are you willing to reconsider your decision to delete this article entirely rather than merging it? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been deleted, and all viable content was merged. To undo the merge you'll have to get consensus at Criminal anthropology, or to add further material from the page's history. No deletion has taken place, the article you're after is Race and crime, without the second capital per WP:MOS. As the page has been edit protected and an admins approved of the protection and consensus for the redirect, I don't think you'll get consensus to recreate the article, if that's your intention. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the article I was referring to; I was careless with my capitalization.


 * Where in Criminal anthropology was the material from Race and crime added? Looking at the page history, no additional content appears to have been added to it when this "merge" took place. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The only relevant material (that met NPOV and RS) had already been added, way before the redirect was enacted. If you want to propose adding more then please do so on the Talk:Anthropological criminology. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

3O on Tucker
Hi, I was slight puzzled by your comment here:diff. I thought my 3O was clear in that I was suggesting that it was necessary to wait until the RFC was closed before taking any further action. Let me know if I need to add a clarification.—Teahot (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, no I agree with you on that - my only disagreement (and it is a very minor one) is that we shouldn't limit ourselves to WP:PROF. I'll clarify my comment. Apologies, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Petition for Feedback
In the past, you have been a key contributor on the Robert Young (author) page. I recently posted some statements on the discussion page for contributor feedback. The goal for these recent statements is to give a synopsis of the primary content found in Young's books. I am not sure if you have seen the latest draft I posted. I do not want to post anything in the article until I have full approval from the other contributors like yourself. So I am writing to ask your opinion on the matter and support so that a representation of the content found in Young's books can be included in some form or another in his article. Side note - this may come up so I will explain my reasoning now: I referenced his blog a few times because he seems to sum up the bulk of the content found in his books in his blog called Articles of Health. If that is unacceptable then I can reference the same content from his books. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health
Re:, there's a discussion here about potentially removing the information. Care to join the discussion? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bach
The site to which I asked to link is a site featuring original, credible content that describes each of the 38 Bach flower essences. Visitors to the site can easily find therein the essences that characterize them. I believe that a link to the requested site will benefit the site’s visitors and meets WP:ELNO’s criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.119.161 (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, May I ask why you have deleted the external link of Bach flower reference guide yesterday? (on Bach Flower Remedies page) This website is the most online comprehensive guide for the 38's Bach flower remedies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.119.161 (talk • contribs)
 * I removed it as I felt it failed WP:ELNO. If you want to reinsert it, please justify why it meets WP:EL on the Bach talk page and I will respond there, thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Advert tag on Phone calls from the dead
Hey, I was cleaning up articles with a promotional tone and noticed that you tagged Phone calls from the dead as promotional. I'm not seeing much promotional content in the article, just one suspicious link that I might remove. Just notifying you that I've removed the tag. <FONT COLOR ="#006600" SIZE="2PX">Netalarm</FONT> 21:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It read very much as a promotion for a book of a similar name when I tagged it (I think it's been moved though, not sure). Cheers, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's about a book or the actual event. I think if it's about the book, it should be deleted or moved accordingly. <font color="#0033BB">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk <font color="#6655FF">contribs  02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning your "no plausible mechanism" claim
As you know, I took exception to your stating that no plausible mechanism exists for homeopathy. I continue to believe you owe a serious refutation of the cavitation cQED mechanism if you want to say that while claiming to be a quantum physicist, but it would be fair for you to say that no published theory seems plausible to you. At any rate, there has been some discussion on my Talk page and I welcome your input. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Homeopathic speculation on quantum physics is a close parallel to creationists' invocation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It sounds all scientific and sophisticated to those who don't know any better, but to anyone who has training in the physical sciences it's hilarious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the dismissive denial, SBHB. I asked Verbal for his input, but you are welcome to participate in the discussion as well, if you have something constructive to say. Otherwise, you are not adding anything here. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's all quantum mysticism. It's an appeal to magic. If homeopathy did work then of course quantum physics would probably be involved, as it is involved with everything at the human scale and below. However, there is the much bigger problem that there is no evidence that homeopathy works. Please feel free to give references to plausible mechanisms published in the scientific literature. Note that Milgrom's metaphor and the like don't cut it. A more plausible mechanism would be Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, but that has the problem of not existing. Not only is there no plausible mechanism, there is no plausible effect. I can have a trusted third party confirm my qualifications if you so desire. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed), Verbal. You've changed the goal posts, now you don't care to address mechanism, only effectiveness, and you deny that out of hand. You offer to have some third party confirm your qualifications, but you haven't said anything substantive that requires qualification, just blind dismissal. &mdash;Whig (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stay civil, Whig. I've always said there is no evidence of action, and I'm not denying it out of hand but after having read the reviews. However, I don't mind looking at plausible mechanisms if one is presented. 1, How is cQED linked to homeopathy, 2, How does this account for the postulated effect?, 3, How does it account for the absence of reproducible, good, evidence - despite many trials - of any homeopathic effect? I think it is silly to waste time on wikipedia discussing how hoemeopathy could work when there is no evidence that it does, and any mechanism goes against the basics of the science we know. I don't mind looking at your research, but I'm afraid I'll only confirm my qualifications via a trusted third party. You haven't presented any theory yet that requires dismissal, and you haven't provided evidence that there is an effect to explain. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no personal attack, and the question posed is whether photon binding occurs in cavitation, not some generic unstated linkage between cQED and homeopathy. Please follow-up to my Talk page since I don't like to repeat myself in multiple places. Again, your "qualifications" are totally irrelevant if you make no substantive refutation. &mdash;Whig (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll continue on your talk, yet there is still nothing for me to refute. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Affirm or deny: cQED photon binding occurs in cavitation. If you deny, please give reasoning. I look forward to your reply on my Talk. &mdash;Whig (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I deny a link to homeopathy without strong evidence, as would any scientist. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is apparent that you do not deny that cavitation causes photon binding. Thank you. &mdash;Whig (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Blippy
Feel free to contribute any impressions: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Noloop (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be careful of canvassing accusations. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Noloop has canvased another ed [], another one who has had issues with some of the accused in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked for impressions not accusations. I think Blippy is a troll, but I'm not sure. If you have a similar impression, that could add something. If you have the opposite impression, that could contribute something too. If you have no opinion, you can say nothing. I invited you to share "any impressions." Noloop (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your still canvasing Noloop, that's that.<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">Aww nuts! <font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I haven't accused anyone of canvassing - I was already aware before I saw this post. My note was simply to make Noloop aware, and that's as far as it goes. Thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect response btw, Verbal. You might want to consider linking if a similar situation arises. But neatly done - you cautioned without accusing. Kudos! KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If "canvassing" is an official wiki-term for something, can you provide a link to the guideline? (Does any guideline have any teeth? Do admins do anything besides block routine 3RRs and vandalism?) Noloop (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">Aww nuts! <font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, here is something no one but Admins generally see - we now have a drop-down for edit summaries when blocking. The choice list is the usual range of reasons to block - although it is not exhaustive! We can and do block for other reasons. Now you know. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * oh heck yes. See WP:BLOCK where you will find we block for vandalism, for WP:EW as well as WP:3RR, for disruption, including making personal attacks, violating WP:BLP, sock puppeting, and lots of other reasons including the catch-all of "persistently violating other policies or guidelines". You're dadgum right people can be blocked for canvassing - I've seen someone banned for it. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Common block reasons
 * Vandalism
 * Vandalism-only account
 * Spamming links to external sites
 * Spam / advertising-only account
 * Creating attack pages
 * Creating nonsense pages
 * Creating copyright violations
 * Abusing multiple accounts
 * Block evasion
 * Personal attacks or harassment
 * Edit warring
 * Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule
 * Disruptive editing
 * Making legal threats
 * Arbitration enforcement
 * Deliberately triggering the Edit filter
 * Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked
 * Templated reasons
 * {{anonblock}}
 * {{schoolblock}}
 * {{blocked proxy}}
 * {{usernameblock}}
 * {{spamusernameblock}}
 * {{UsernameHardBlocked}}
 * {{checkuserblock}}
 * {{Tor}}
 * {{Vaublock}}

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Timewave Zero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timewave_zero#Summary Can't you see a "clarification needed" tag here? I added a quotation from McKenna providing such clarification. You have promptly reverted it. What is your problem? Please stop your malicious activity.
 * It doesn't clarify anything and is too big. Propose your edit on the talk page per WP:BURDEN, as asked. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my edit?--Systemizer (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator
Hi Verbal, have you ever considered becoming an admin? I glanced through your contribs and there were, well, thousands. Everytime I've encountered you we have been disagreeing, but you seem like a good editor, and are always polite. I would be honoured to nominate you, but thought I would ask permission first. Spritebox (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now isn't a great time for me, and I'm pretty sure I'd fail as I've not written an article from scratch. I've started a few I think, but not done a lot of work that way. I start to but get distracted by RL. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Null
Quackfiles is not a reliable source, especially not for a BLP. This is currently an OTRS issue and I have to request that you do not revert. John Reaves 08:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please state that in your edit summary and on the talk page. You made no reference to OTRS in your edit summary. Please note this on the talk page to avoid confusion, and don't use blank edit summaries when reverting good faith edits. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not be true
I would not be true to myself and my curiosity unless I ask this question. If the complete data concerning Thomas Edison's attempt to make a device that he believed could contact the dead were added to the Edison entry, you would remove it because it is not notable? If not why, because this concerns Thomas Edison and not Gary Schwartz? I have always had great difficulty understanding the bounds of other people's curiosity. Please reply soon on my talk page. Kazuba (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about that, so I'd have to look into it (level of RS, etc). As for Newton, there are plenty of RS into his later use of alchemy, and it seems to be mentioned appropriatly in his article - though I only just skimmed it. If someone tried to write a huge section just on that in his bio I might suggest it was spun out as a seperate article, and insist that we stick to RS. Basically, I follow the sources. Note that I haven't argued that Gary Schwartz isn't notable in the wikipedia sense. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What if the only primary RS (I had to look up RS) is Thomas Edison's personal diary and a letter Edison wrote that was printed in Scientific American? What are the limits that establish reliable RS on Wiki? Please reply. Kazuba (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought RS had been linked in the talk page discussion. Here is the link: WP:RS. That gives most of the criteria. I would prefer a third party RS that discusses these things, so as to avoid giving WP:UNDUE prominence in the article. For articles, the notability guidelines can be found here: WP:NOTE. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

anothergareth re. Alexander Technique
Hi Verbal,

Thanks for your welcome. I have to say I’m impressed by your credentials but in this instance I believe your reverting of my edit was erroneous. I had stated my reasons for the change in the appropriate place in the discussion and have now made the case more strongly. You say my changes did not conform to the verifiability policy. However, I did not make an assertion in my edit. I changed the opening sentence slightly so that it ceased to make the unverifiable claim that was already there i.e. that the Alexander Technique is an alternative medicine. I would appreciate your feedback as an experienced editor of Wikipedia and understand that however strong my opinion or indignation, it is not what counts here. You will find on that discussion page a number of statements to the effect that it is not an alternative medicine so I hope eventually we can find something that not only is verifiable but also reflects the reality of what AT is and isn’t.

Interestingly, representatives from the four main Professional Associations in the UK recently battled it out over four weeks to write an Alexander Technique starting definition with which they could all agree! I actually think what they came up with isn’t bad! When that gets to be in the public domain, I would even suggest it be used as a starting point on Wikipedia too as there’s a lot else about the current Wikipedia opening few paragraphs that just doesn’t cut the mustard (e.g. that 1600 hour training stuff) as has also been pointed out in the discussion section by those who have visited the page to try and get an idea of what the AT is about. Regards, Gareth Anothergareth (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I'm with you 100% on keeping libel laws out of science - Go Simon Singh :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothergareth (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revert
I gave a justification at the deletion debate before restoring. Please do me the courtesy of discussing there instead of edit warring.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There were three editors against your revert on the article discussion page - 1 who removed the OR, and two who removed repetition. The article discussion page is where you should discuss edits to the article. Also, a single revert does not count as edit warring. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually 4 editors on the talk page have agreed with the removal (myself, Hfran, Ikip, Gandalf), and only CW was against. Policy is also for the removal, as are the majority of those involved at the AfD. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

concerning Physician article
Dear Verbal,

While hoping not to irritate you, today I am partly restoring the deletions you made, on 5th September, of earlier additions to Physician in the Social Role section, hence I thought I should explain why. I did note your reasons in the edit comment as 'Partial revert per WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:UNDUE of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE'. Over a year ago, I put in a note at the section top requesting this section be expanded, but sadly no-one did it, so I finally got off my rear end and did so myself.

Concerning WP:QUOTEFARM, I have noted your concern and have shortened the quotations, but I disagree that they are irrelevant. In particular: (1), Sir William Osler was one of the greatest physicians who ever lived, and was partly responsible for making Johns Hopkins arguably the best medical school in the world (I'm writing this from Australia). His words from a century ago still describe, elegantly and almost perfectly, the need for humanity in the practice of scientific medicine. Hippocrates, and by implication medical ethics, are not mentioned anywhere else in this article. Also (2), Shakespeare's words from Cymbeline show simply that physicians have their own issues with mortality — if you can put this in better words, then please by all means do so! And (3), R. D. Laing is surely not one of my heroes — I reckon he was crazier than most of his patients — but he has a still strong reputation as a social commentator.

Concerning WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, I am hoping that these worries may not be well founded. As a specialist physician sensu stricto, I try to think of myself as scientific and materialist, and have no personal interest in vitalism or CAM. If you think that the wording still implies support for these views, then that is not my intention so please re-word it. However, it was precisely in an attempt to preserve a proper Wikipedia NPOV that I thought it warranted to include a brief discussion with references on these matters. As for world view, mirabile dictu, after much reading I have now learnt there is a vast literature on medical anthropology, and the sources I referenced are thoroughly respectable ones. The term biomedicine is one I loathe — what other kind of medicine should there be?! — but sadly it is now well establised, as is the term medical model — another of R. D. Laing's sins. Like many practitioners of 'biomedicine', I am normally too busy — or at least uninterested in other world views — to have previously read any of this literature.

From your user page, I gather you're a practising scientist, and will like rational debate. Please, if you are still quite unhappy with this shorter, second attempt, I would be grateful if you would explain your concerns in more detail (either to me or more generally in the article's talk page), or better still, show how to re-word the additions to the article rather than just deleting.

Cheers, --DavidB 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please justify on the talk page, where all interested editors can join in. See WP:BRD. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason1
Just in case you hadn't noticed, he's trying to clean up fringe stuff. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion talk page
I'm sure you're familiar with the restriction on editing others' talk page comments, and the fact that anyone may copy an archived talk page section out of the archives. Removing the section from Talk:Cold fusion about secondary sources does not seem to be congruent with either. 98.210.193.221 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up - this could easily be a sock of User:Abd, who was recently banned by Arbcom for disruption. Behavior and style is similar, as are his edits to voting and cold fusion related articles. I don't know anything about checkuser but it may be in order if he keeps disrupting. Phil153 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. He expressed himself directly and concisely in two sentences, without invoking any Byzantine theories of social interaction. I don't care what checkuser says, it's not Abd. MastCell Talk 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He's the second IP to add that section from the cold fusion archives back onto the talk page in a couple of days. Both have short contribution histories, an interest in cold fusion, and evident familiarity with WP... I don't know who they are, but whoever they are, I suspect they have been editing for a lot longer than a few days.  EdChem (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's Abd, but there are several problems with their edit. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a hell of a coincidence that the IP which just appeared likes both cold fusion and voting. Abd had a huge interest in voting, and objects in the same way to edit removals .The voting thing is a clincher. It's an open and shut case that this is Abd. Phil153 (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also turns up commenting at the Abd case blanking discussion on AC noticeboard. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a banned user that constantly tries to impersonate Abd and put him into problems, and sometimes edits his talk page or article talk pages to insult him, I think it was User:Yellowbeard or User:Fredrick_day. He was also interested in voting and he had a dispute with Abd about voting. This could perfectly be that person. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds more likely. Maybe we should ask Abd his opinion of that idea, but I don't want to appear to be goading anyone. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Astroturf
I didn't move the page. I don't even know how to do that. 12.5.61.130 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, the wrong template appeared. Fixed now. If you get an account you can move all the pages you like. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments
Please don't throw around accusatory cmments as to whitewashing and so on, I have no interest in any conflict of interest in this group at all, I am looking to improve the article, please AGF. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your efforts are good faith. They are unfortunately against our policies. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I find your style of discussion not very friendly and that is being polite. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A little help
Please review articles in Special:Contributions/Mbhiii my edits for anything you care to add. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I'm looking for? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat

...for one thing, my attempt to keep Squicks from deleting a hidden note to other editors. As a result of my complaint about Squicks, and our warring, he and I are blocked for a while on this, in effect. Please go back and add what you will to the article. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of us are blocked from anything, that is a lie. Regardless, your Wikistalking in which you go to all the talk pages of editors that I have once interacted with begging them to oppose me is really bad form. It's the sort of thing, MBHiii, that will earn you censure from admins if reported. The Squicks (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not turn Verbal's talk page into another battlegrounds. Try to keep it on one another's talk pages. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Read discussion topic "Evidence of effectiveness" under Acupuncture
I would revert your edit, but I have passed the 3RR rule. You reverted it to a statement, which referenced sources that dwarfed mine by ten thousand suns in terms of unreliability.05:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Orthopathy
You wrote 'You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orthopathy.' Well, okay I am. As for you, you said stuff like 'controversial changes should have been discussed to reach a consensus,' but did no such thing and probably removed my NPOV tag of the criticism again--before any discussion, so it is rather against the rules, so perhaps you could also be blocked from editing--and then (misleadingly?) moved the criticism section into the one about (or implied to be about) NH practice. If I did more than 3 reversions in 24 hours, which I do not think I did, I apologize. However, how about discussing exactly what you think the problems are? Everything I added was cited. I took out mainstream citation about Native Americans having more lactose intolerance because I remembered they also have more osteoporosis, but OTOH The China Study and the osteoporosis article's statement on milk consumption make it somewhat clear why that could be true. I asked on the talk page if The China Study is what you called fringe. I do not think you are being very clear/fair.--Dchmelik (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No the whole topic is fringe. I couldn't understand the rant about the China study on the talk page, I'm sorry. As to the "criticisms" and "counter-criticisms" sections, those are incredibly bad style and large changes like that should be discussed if challenged. Also the framing of the counter criticism falls foul of WP:BLP and the sources don't seem to be reliable per WP:RS. It also gives WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe POV that is counter to WP:NPOV policy. Etc. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also it's a warning, to try and stop either of us getting blocked. Please simplify your China comments so I can understand them, and justify why the sources are reliable, and why the page meets our notability criteria, on the talk page. Goodnight <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way I had mainly just asked if The China Study was 'fringe' and this time only cited the American Dietetic Association, USDA, and I said some things that the rest of the article and the vitamin D and osteoporosis ones said. Please justify why they are not reliable or relevant.  I do not see why an earlier 'criticism' section should go into a 'practice' section that starts and is almost all about NH practice to make it randomly ends with a critical comment.  Many articles on philosophical topics have sections like 'criticism' or 'other viewpoint,' and maybe 'counter-criticusm' or, if it is a large article, an opposing 'other viewpoint,' and I do not know why that is bad style for a science article (I think a 'NH and osteoporosis' section with all viewpoints would be appropriate, and fasting criticism could be cited separately.)


 * I guess I got a little off-topic about The China Study except the article is about a book source of a very large-scale study that AFAIK was careful enough by scientific standards, and the book is currently not listed as being fringe. It would be better just to ead the article's section that concerns my citation--or also the part of osteoporosis article concerning milk consumption that agrees more with The China Study than Barrett.  Then if that somehow does not make sense try listing The China Study as a non-NPOV article.  As long as other mainstream articles and their citations support what I say I do not think I was non-NPOV.--Dchmelik (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Crop Circles and More removal
The website I putted under the heading "Crop Circles on Google Maps" being: http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/where/present/cropcirclelocations.html is exactly what the heading is promising. It is unbiased geographical information on recent crop circle events. There are no opinions attached to the info. It is pure factual. It is open and free. (Only the archives are restricted to members.) I see no reason why you would withhold this information from the general public. Bert Janssen (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) bertjanssen, 2 Oktober 2009


 * Your Crop circle anon IP editor is Bert Janssen, per messages he left on my talk page concerning an image deletion and his autobiography. ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton
Should the response to a warning about a personal attack be to repost it on your user page? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I only glanced at what he posted. Did it still contain the "retarded" accusation? I'll not remove it - no one reads his page anyway, but if he continues then it needs action. I'm not too well at the moment so I don't feel like doing much myself! I wish he'd fix his sig. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. And we're now Inquisitors, too. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 12:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, I would never have expected that. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit
With this diff on ANI, you removed a comment by me. Please be more careful in future. Mathsci (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird. The edit conflict stuff really seems buggy. I copied my change into the top box and didn't do a replace all. Sorry about that. Will try harder to double check in future (usually do, must have missed this one) Apologies. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. ChildofMidnight, in his infinite wisdom, has pronounced on the meritlessness of my edits (and those of WMC). On the other hand some of his own edits have been inexplicably "cleansed" by the clerks from the talk page of ArbCom/motions. These clerks should tread with care. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Erika Schwartz page notability
Think it passes? I'm half waiting-for-more-sources not AFD-ing it, and half the-community-has-an-absurdly-low-bar-so-why-waste-my-time not AFD-ing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it passes, but I'd be surprised if lots of ARS and alt-med editors didn't show up. There are a few BLPs on WP:FTN at the moment which clearly fail, yet are getting surprising numbers of keep votes. I'd wait a bit, and maybe bring it up on FTN before taking it to AfD. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Her big thing is as far as I can tell bioidentical hormones. I wouldn't exactly call it alt med since there's actually an anatomical basis and research.  More like wildly over-stating the claims in areas that haven't been well researched (which does sound a bit alt med, hm...).  The bioidentical hormone replacement therapy page itself is quite interesting, but I bet if you brought it up at the FTN it would drop like a stone with no interest whatsoever.  There's also a pretty substantial amount of good quality information available from pubmed and various journals (and it's also pretty coherent - no proof for the claims and no reason to make them).  BHRT and related areas (Schwartz, Wiley Protocol) tend to be pretty quiet.
 * Oh, and if you haven't read Trick or Treatment yet, you really, really should. It's delicious.  Also has a google books preview which is very handy for the "search inside" feature.  Want a reference that the results for acupuncture are less and less promising the better the research gets?  Look no further... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have it on my bookshelf. I've just finished "Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All" by Rose Shapiro (which would class Schwartz as alt-med), and now I'm onto Flat Earth News (which is depressing). Trick or Treatment is next :) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just asked my library to buy the former, and will avoid the latter. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh don't get me wrong, Flat earth news is excellent - that's why it's so depressing... (I can't believe that's a red link!) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the link, but only as a redirect - books from across the puddle are inherently non-notable. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring on Outline of Chocolate. Do not repeat your edits without discussion. -- penubag  (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been no editwarring. Please leave the tags until there has been discussion. Your project has no consensus. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not valid tags. First, it is not a duplicate of 'List of chocolate'. An outline is not synonymous to a list; please inform yourself by reading Outlines. Second, there is no reason to merge the outline into the list as lists and outlines present material in a different manner. If you ask my opinion though, it's the list that should be merged into the outline...regardless, you cannot go about placing tags on hundreds of pages without consensus. -- penubag  (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no List of chocolate topics or any list on chocolate. Please research before acting. -- penubag  (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good target for the move, it would resolve the non-standard naming at least. I have restored the tagging to one page. You and your friends mass non-standard naming spree is the cause of this problem. WP:OUTLINE has failed to gain any consensus and is a mere essay, and a poorly thought out one at that. I agree an outline is not a list, that's why naming lists as outlines is so stupid. If I wanted an outline of chocolate, I'd look at the Chocolate article. Outline means summary in this context, not some randomly organised list of related topics that duplicates other articles and functionality for no benefit. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlines have existed on Wikipedia since Wikipedia was first created. There is no consensus for having lists in Wikipedia just like there is no consensus for outlines. You don't seem to understand what an outline is. Could I please ask you to read this one short paragraph on WPOOK called How do outlines help me? Please read that and then comment, it will take less than 1 minute, I promise. -- penubag  (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are policies and guidelines about lists, but not outlines. Outlines fail due to the spectacularly poor naming, and misuse of the term "outline". Look in the OED. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * * sigh* You are just going to disagree no matter what. First you say it's one thing and now it's the word "outline"?? You aren't very consistent which suggests you are too biased against outlines to see how useful they can be regardless of those very minor issues (though they aren't even issues). -- penubag  (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can have more than one reason for doing things - I'm great like that :) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're a Christian? PULL THE OTHER ONE!
You are no Christian. Otherwise, you would adhere to the Biblical injunction not to bear false witness. You are willing to post libellous information on the English Defence League page, so that proves it. I replied to your reply on Angr's talk page. I am just waiting for my talk page to be deleted now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwebb1969 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL
Just wondering why you reverted the edits I made to the EDL article, you claim NPOV but you went backwards. I have reverted. <span style="background-color:#841818; border-top: 1px solid #AD3031; border-bottom: 1px solid #5A1810; color:#EFEBDE"> BRIANTIST  (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved on talk page. 3 different editors objected to the wholesale changes. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

????
Who are you to revert edits???!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.138.112 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice. I had you in my watch list for some reason (maybe I commented here once) and before removing you I took a quick scan to see if I missed anything. I saw the Outlines stuff and thought you handled that pretty well. I get to here and all I can say is "applause". -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * <strikes up Gilbert and Sullivan music> He is a Wikipedia editor. It's greatly to his credit, and he himself has said it… ;) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * May as well use this topic, since it's come up. Verbal, if you have to deal with any more of those Outlines moves, let me know so we can see about stopping it before all the cleanup work is necessary. tedder (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, although I think the topic of this thread was about my revert on English Defense League. 1 edit in three days and I'm accused of edit warring and ownership :) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late
The discussion drags on, but it's not appropriate to add any more new voices. Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion is a good place to start your journey if you want to look at the controversy. I'm not expecting an answer today.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Best of luck - does it help if I say you're better off without :) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You have been asked repeatedly by a number of people to stop your disruptive and controversial page moves and discuss them first, but have not. Please feel free to appeal this with the unblock template here. — Jake   Wartenberg  17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (cross posted from Jake's talk, so replies and any drama can occur here) Thank you for the unblock. I didn't want to mess up your talk page as another forum for this dispute, so I didn't directly address the misrepresentations made here (TT has already accused me of libelling him). I'll still attempt avoid doing this, suffice to say that I disagree with the statements made above. Returning to the point, I had already promised not to make any moves from articles originally named as outlines to lists, and will now cease moving lists back to list naming conventions, but make others aware at appropriate pages (such appropriate projects, for example the mathematics project, where a consensus against outlines is developing/has developed, and WT:OUTLINE). Thank you for your time, and apologies for your being dragged into this. Note that ANI had already approved the moving back of pages, and other admins had assisted me in deleting redirects to enable moves. Some may dispute my version of events, I expect that, but that is where I was working from. To be clear, I'm sure you acted in good faith. I'll copy this to my talk page, and ask others to post any replies there. An RfC on the topic is apparently in preparation. Yours, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you drop me a note if you see that RfC go up before I do? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Me two. I expect that Jake will do justice by also blocking TT for starting all of this with his mass moves without any consensus or discussion at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And me, small groups of editors declaring policy without adequate engagement will do the Wikipedia no good. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  05:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅You might want to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems an unrelated discussion about a subset of these articles has started here:   Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Louisiana history. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline RfC help request
Apparently I'm writing this (I thought other people were, maybe they are?). Anyone have any ideas on how to do this, examples, help, etc? Should it be workshopped on a subpage? ?? I'm away for at least 4 hours now though. Thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want to? As there are some strong opinions, I'd recommend a group effort to make it as neutral as possible and we don't expose commentators to recent heated discussion. I'm assuming that the RfC is to cover outlines existence and procedure for their application rather than recent editing behaviour (which would get messy). Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually came to your talk page to ask who was drafting the RfC so that I could help. I recommend we start drafting in a subpage of WT:Outlines - it will need to be looked at by both opposers and proponents to ensure that it is as neutral as possible.  Alternatively, we could start one in a subpage of your userspace (or mine) and then move to a subpage of WT:Outlines when we've gotten the basics worked out. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never done one of these but I would be willing to try to help out though. Maybe I can help with difs since in the past few days I've mostly been reading from one page to another.  I also agree that this should be about whether outlines should exist or set up a procedure.  Let me know if I can be of help and please do leave me a dif or you can do it here.  I'ld like to watch at the minimum so I can see it being done.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm far too tired to think about this now (2 hours giving lectures, 6 hours on broken and striking trains). My idea would be that I and others helped coordinate, that it would be neutral and take input from various viewpoints, and would be presented in a neutral space. I'm not convinced the outline project is that space. I believe someone else is writing a RFCU on TT, and I don't have a problem with that, but that isn't what I envisage the focus of this will be. Anyway, I'm very very tired. PS: I'd much rather not do this, but this does need resolving. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I started the last proposal for a new namespace in 2007, and have had many criticisms of the outline project since it started. I'd be exhaustedly willing to start a draft for an RfC on at least one of the issues from Wikipedia_talk:Outlines, presumably on namespace initially. (?)
 * I'll be away for a few hours, but will start re-collating links and sentences this evening. I'll let everyone know both here and elsewhere when I do, if that sounds amenable. (I asked Dbachmann for a preliminary clarification at User talk:Dbachmann this morning. If anyone here would like to comment on that question (or anything), that'd be great (reply at my talkpage perhaps, to avoid overwhelming Verbal or Dbachmann). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As for TT, I started the last and only RfC/U on him too (April 2006, but please let's not dredge up the distant past), so please don't think I'll be playing favourites! I agree that he needed a cooldown block today, after his 2way pagemoves.
 * User:Bhtpbank has stated a few times that he is collecting evidence for an RfC/U. If that does occur, I hope that it can be kept entirely separate from any RfC we start about content/outlines/navigation. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When this is put together I think this should be put in. It doesn't seem correct to me plus it needs to  be changed if outlines do or do not get a consensus.  This is linked to the Contents on the sidebar of each page so I thought it should be brought to others attentions in case it was missed.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've created a sandbox for interested users to work on this at: User:Karanacs/Outline_RfC_draft. Karanacs (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neal's Yard Remedies
Hi Verbal. I'm concerned that you have reverted the edits made by Horticus to this article. The edits were backed by verifiable citations, and were not (unlike the edit I reverted on that page a few weeks back) removing any of the criticisms. Given that that's the case, I can't see any reason why those edits shouldn't have been allowed to stand, nor why the editor who added them should feel that they need to discuss them on the talk page before adding them. This seems to go a little against the spirit of Wikipedia, and is likely to put off new contributors. But I'd be interested to hear your views. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Verbal - following from the comments from OpenToppedBus keen to understand why you reverted the edits to the Neal's Yard entry? I am new to Wikipedia and this was my first entry. Lots more I want to add but want to get it right, hoping you can help. Horticus (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time I seem to remember thinking they were spammy references, but that clearly isn't true. The only thing I'd ask you to do is to work it into prose rather than have it as the list format. Probably had too many firefox tabs open. Apologies, and best of luck. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, is it Ok to re-submit the changes or best to edit first? Would an intro and then a list be better? Also seem to be having problems getting the references to link properly, any tips on the correct tagging for this? Horticus (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input on the edits that I reinstated Horticus (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL opening
I have reverted to the consensus first sentence. I was thinking that the next section is getting too big. I know you have reverted Spylab's changes, but do you agree that History could now be separated from Current activities, given the additional material now in there? Any further EDL activities will make that section even bigger and I think the History is worthy of it's own Heading. Leaky Caldron  11:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs discussion. I will review your changes. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you message. This is the only lead restoring edit I needed to make yesterday and it didn't involve removing any other material . If you can find the one that concerns you let me know. I always try to make important changes clear in the edit summary.
 * I am always careful about which issues I support. I tend to consider the issue rather than the editor and I think I've put my support of Ctp.'s approach to the NPOV board in a neutral way. There may be systemic bias reporting - there may not be. Let's just agree that not everything reported in the press is well researched. Do I personally think that they are far right? I certainly think that they are influenced and have a classic far right approach in their activities. But it is not for me to make that an encyclopaedic fact any more than it is for you or anyone else. I am not backing away from the consensus in supporting an approach for fresh eyes. Leaky  Caldron  10:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is the edit - it didn't just change the lead. I didn't notice the other changes, as going on the ES I thought you had only changed the lead. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Passage Meditation article
You added a "npov" tag to this article; the tag says "see discussion on talk page" but I can find no comments added by you to either the talk page of PM or to my talk page or to your talk page explaining why you think the tag is justified. Where should I look for this discussion? Would you please explain why you think the tag is justified, and give me an opportunity to correct whatever you think is wrong.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * te tag is justified by the misleading wording and incorrect use of research studies, as discussed on the article talk. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * can you please be more specific? What is misleading? And I'm not sure also why you say the research studies have been incorrectly used - the research has taken place, is documented, and is relevant - and the debate about the research in the talk page does not seem to me to have concluded that the research is incorrect. I'm happy to make improvements to my additions but can't see why your assertion of NPOV is justified - of course I am interested in Passage Meditation otherwise i would not be providing material for an article - but I've tried to be unbiased and factual in what I've written. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Verbal, Since you've not yet responded may I add something to my quick note above? I don't think it's reasonable for you to put a "npov" tag on the article when HealthResearcher has posted on the discussion page the question asking how the current version of the research section may lack NPOV given that they represent findings from peer-reviewed studies, and he/she knows of know other studies that conflict with those findings, and no-one has yet responded. Is it not more correct to try to reach consensus on the discussion page, rather than your placing a NPOV tag (which is very prominent in the article) - a tag which does not yet reflect the outcome of the discussion. I hope we can reach agreement on this smoothly - the article was originally (and probably correctly) criticised for being a bit skimpy, and inevitably as material is added it may give rise to discussion, which we all benefit from if we can then end up with a more complete and accurate article. Thanks, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have seen it coming.
Regarding the list of psychic abilities: I felt as though the basis of distinguishing from among "real-world" and "fictional" psychic abilities was not altogether clear. There are some who believe with unassailable certainty that all aspects of the paranormal are fiction and, furthermore, that those who make assertions to the contrary are, at best, misguided, perhaps delusional. Were such a person to be presented with one list comprised of psychic abilities that have manifested in the so-called real world and another drawn from fictional sources, he or she would inevitably fail to see any difference at all between the two and summarily dismiss them both as products of an overactive imagination (and maybe even add "Get a life!" for good measure).

That claims of psychic ability have a demonstrated resistance to independent verification and replication under controlled conditions - for whatever reason - hardly lends credence to the opposing argument (the mention of this is a common element in most articles on psychic abilities). It also does not help matters when declarations of psychic ability may be nothing more than the product of self-serving bias. One of my favorite illustrations of this relates to Aliester Crowley, a man who, by any measure, never seemed to lack for a high opinion of himself or the company of others who were willing to glorify him on his behalf (although I mean no disrespect either to him or his adherents, of course). It comes from the article on bilocation: "[He] was reported by acquaintances to have the ability, even though he himself was not conscious of its happening at the time." I can just imagine the conversation that took place after this occurred. Crony: "Aliester, I saw you on the moor yesterday." Crowley: "But I was here at the manor all day." Crony: "You know what this means, don't you? You must have been in both places at the same time!" Crowley: "Oh. Alright. I suppose I was. That is, yes, of course I was!"

On the one hand, I am not denying that he possessed this ability; in a similar regard, I am not implying that his acquaintances were somehow mistaken in their attribution. On the other hand...

Another significant problem is encountered in attempting to determine which of the sources documenting psychic abilities are works of fiction, or at least unreliable and inaccurate, and which ones are not. Some might be obvious, but other instances are not quite so clear-cut. Any one of us can conduct an on-line search and, in very short order, find a site wherein some person lays claim to an ability that has all the appearance of something straight from the pages of a fantasy or science fiction novel. Are these individuals attempting to deceive us (or just themselves)? Should we dismiss their claims? And, if so, why their claims as opposed to anyone else's? Beyond the internet, which are the reliable and accurate sources? Religious and spiritual texts from every cultural tradition abound with tales of people who display what could be described as psychic abilities. Are these fictional accounts? All of them, or just some? On what criteria do you base this decision? In certain cases, psychic abilities that appear in works of fiction, while perhaps embellished for dramatic effect, are modeled after those claimed by people in the real world. Should these abilities, simply because they are mentioned in a work of fiction, be excluded out of hand (for example, telekinesis in Carrie versus pyrokinesis in Firestarter)? Do we only dedicate our attention to psychic abilities that are the focus of scholarly research and scientific experimentation? Does the metaphorical tweed jacket or lab coat automatically confer authority and credibility?

My only intention here is to highlight the difficulties inherent in undertaking to separate "fiction" from the "real world" when it comes to psychic abilities in order to better define the scope of the list, and, as a kind of disclaimer, let prospective readers know that there is some uncertainty with regards to telling the difference. The manner in which I tried to convey this idea in the lead paragraph might have come across as evincing some sort of personal bias or be perceived as an attempt to detract from or undermine the validity of the list itself, but nothing could be further from the truth. I do not want to influence other's beliefs one way or the other on the subject of psychic abilities, however I may feel about it myself. That said, I am totally open to suggestions for revising this particular contribution, if indeed it is an appropriate issue to raise in conjunction with the list.

I am also willing to discuss the rationale behind the other changes I made, and welcome your thoughts. I believe they are worthwhile and sincerely hope they will not be rejected in their entirety. Thank you. Apo-kalypso (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you have any objections to the changes I made to the body of the list, or was it only the lead paragraph that gave you cause for concern? Either way, I regret not contacting you and Ryan Paddy beforehand to propose and discuss these changes before implementing them. If nothing else, this incident has taught me to be more conscientious about editing WP articles. I was just wondering what I ought to do at this point, and would very much appreciate some guidance. Apo-kalypso (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice on WP policy
Hi Verbal. I have a question about WP policy, and I thought of asking you since you're an experienced editor and did welcome me to WP offering to help if I had questions. I have a disagreement with a user about whether a certain survey should be included in a page or not. The discussion is here. In short, the user added his own non-notable non-free book as a survey reference, which I object to since there are multiple free surveys written by the people who founded the field. What should I do in such a case? Was my response appropriate? Should I remove the reference again after the user has reinserted it? --Robin (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked him to justify the addition on the talk page, and removed it pending some good reasons. I also made a suggestion for expanding the article. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Robin (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Verbal,

I delivered my reply to your post, about including my book on quantum walks in the survey section of Wikipedia article on quantum walks, here. I do not mean to pressurize or be taken as pushy, I just want to make sure you know that my answer is already in the quantum walk talk page.

Best regards,

Salvador

Salvador.venegas (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alternative HIV Viewpoints
It is my understanding that when an article has been nominated for deletion, that the article must not be blanked pending the outcome. 7 Days I think? Neuromancer (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking means removing all content or content that is supported by policy and RS. I think the removals improve the article, which will likely be deleted anyway. Note that enforcing policy (both correctly or incorrectly) does not exempt an editor from 3RR. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I#Neuromancer
I read your comment there as supporting indef. with topic ban as a second choice. Is this correct? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

broken refs.
Apologies and I do make errors, I get back to check if there are issues and I appreciate your correcting mine, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I noticed it had caused confusion. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Passage Meditation article
Dear Verbal, Can you please be explicit in what you think is wrong with this article? You say "The essential POV nature of the article hasn't been addressed" but clearly HealthResearcher has tried to address what he/she thinks you may be objecting to, yet, without anything more specific from you, it's hard to know what to do further with the article to "address the POV nature". I am one of the 2 main contributors to this article, and it is upsetting to see "tags" on an article that has been produced, in good faith, to provide encyclopaedic information to the broad community about a subject that is clearly of interest to quite a large group of people (if you look at how many people have bought the books on the subject). You have every right to place a tag, but if we're to get the article acceptable we need to understand what specifically is wrong with it. I do hope you can help us get the article "right". Thanks, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

!RR
Ill tell you what, if it is so troubling to you I could support the removing of the troubles template if there was a consensus to keep the 1RR on the article as I feel this 1RR is beneficial to the editing of this article? Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with an admin imposing 1RR (per day) on the page if they justify it, for a set period, and if they police it. Elonka seems to have abandoned the page and not interested in it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall I ask her? Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask any admin. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat

Verbal, I'm increasingly concerned by your actions at the British National Party article. You don't seem to be there to edit the article or participate at the talkpage about the article's content: You're just there to complain about the Troubles restriction tag. This is starting to get into the realm of disruption, so could you please back off a bit? Please try to keep comments on the talkpage, focused on the article. Any concerns that you have about the tag, are more appropriate at the ArbCom clarification (where I see you've already posted a statement). In the meantime, you are welcome to edit the article, and participate in content-related discussions on the talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the tag and I'll go back to editing normally in this area. I have only recently become active in this area, and your uniaterateral and unsupportable addition of the tag is causing disruption. I am following the advice we were given at requests for clarification. You have three options: remove the tag yourself, let someone else remove it, or justify it. You have not yet done any of these things, and I do not appreciate your threatening note. Since your return you have been behaving quite well, but this incident is leading me to reconsider. I hope you will reconsider your highly disruptive actions. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles banner
Some Suggested text for a RfC on the banner. --Natet/c 13:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm about to teach so may not get to it until tomorrow. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cosmetic acupuncture and NPOV/Advert tags
Hello. Would you mind explaining on the talk page (as the tag itself requires) what parts of the article you believe are not written neutrally? I think the text I wrote reflects the (reliable) sources I used pretty effectively, but I'm certainly open to constructive criticism. I'd also note that the article was one that popped up at WP:SCV and piqued my interest; I have never come across the subject before deciding to DYK it. Cheers, – Toon 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurately describing my edits to stormfront as POV edits
I don't even support stormfront so please don't revert my edits to support your pov, they don't even alter the POV of the article simply correct errors in citations and request a citation about a political party candidate supposedly associated with them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.159 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Message
Messages for you on Leonora Piper discussion page.Kazuba (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Mackey's Music World‎
I'd be interested in your opinion of this article. It struck me as promotional nonsense and possible COI. But I could be wrong. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you have this under control. Gary Schwartz might need revisiting now. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the Mackey article seems to be sourced entirely from one book, so I wonder if its notability might be in question. I'll see if I can improve the Schwartz article when I get a chance, it strikes me that it is cruft-heavy at this point. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to ...
which I can only assume you missed. Please note that this is the same section that was directly referenced by the tag. Since your claims on Tedders talk page are now shown to be spurious, I respectfully request that you restore the tag. --GoRight (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That discussion has run its course. Present new, specific complaints that can be addressed or stop edit warring. Either way, don't edit war or do it by proxy. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Who says so?  --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, here is the new section . --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward on SOoCC
I made a proposal near the bottom of that AN/I thread that relates to your post to tedder's talkpage. I think that that is the best place to discuss unprotection and what to do about the tag; then again, I have been wrong before. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of us could, possibly, care less about this specific tag and more about the general case of admins revert warring on articles then protecting their preferred version, and informing other users that their edits are specially blessed. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BioInitiative Report
Did you notice that this is back? It seems to have been commented on enough now not to be AfD-bait this time, but the text still needs to be worked over if you feel like it and get a chance. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology
See discussion here,. In retrospect I hereby acknowledge that I was over zealous in my use of the word "vanadlism" in that instance. If I could strike the edit summary, I would. My next best alternative seems to be this. I apologize for the incident and any hard feelings it may have caused. --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU Hack Rename
Personally I think an enforcement action should be investigated - there are a lot of experienced editors behaving badly on that rename page. They should know better. That makes it more important to bring this to discussion, not less. That was some of the ugliest stuff I've seen by people that I don't think are completely crazy. Ignignot (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, there is a review started that may be of interest to you. Thought you might be interested. Hope all is well, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship
I write because your name is listed at WikiProject User Rehab. I wonder if you might consider joining others in sharing the burden of a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends..
How long you and Snowded are going to take. You still haven't really entered the discussion on the history part yet, apart from to say "Ditto". I think the electoral section can be copyedited without controversy, the policy part on the social and cultural may probably need dicussion first (curently its filled with obscurantisms about Mein Kampft or former members, ex-boyfiends half Chinese-Cuban child, which seems to be pretty much off topic). I'll copyedit the electoral section in the mean time and create a graph image for it, but I do expect you and Snowded to actually fully enter discussion on the other parts (as I won't sit waiting around forever). I'm thinking of getting a third opinion thing set up also, so we can have some non-involved editors contribute to the discussion. SirFozzie might be OK for that, but I'll look into it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Third opinion is no good, more than two editors are involved. There is no dispute, we're just trying to get you to stop acting unilaterally when you have been asked to discus things. It doesn't "depend" at all. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Third opinion is much good, since two editors are making bias reverts the article subject. It would seem that you're "trying" to stop me from working on the progression of the article, a highly counter-productive initiative (you still haven't properly entered the discussion of content, just reverted, said "ditto" and went off to revert some other articles). You'd do well to keep in mind that you are not a one man police force, nobody needs your permission to edit Wikipedia. The point is if you're not willing to come and enter the discussion of the content properly with me (especially after making such a big fuss about it), then you have absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to reverting. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two editors, you, + the others involved on the talk page, + those on ANI, + 2/0, adds up to more than two. Your selective interpretation seems to be a recurring problem. Please stop making personal attacks. You need to abide by policy, as do I. You have been warned by an uninvolved admin that you are not abiding by policy. If you would propose your changes rather than engage in fruitless meta discussion I might have more time to spend talking about your proposals. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Verbal

 * Appealing user : – <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat


 * Sanction being appealed : Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding


 * Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction : }}}


 * Notification of that editor : The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise.
 * I cannot do this as I'm blocked, if someone would I'd be grateful. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Verbal
I removed the tag once on Feb 3 and once on Feb 5, following discussion on the talk page, WP:FTN,  and WP:NPOVN, which was all supportive of the  well established, already existing, consensus (shown by RFCs, etc - see  Talk:Waterboarding/Definition). The addition of the BLP tag, and overtagging across related pages, shows the abuse of policy that THF  was engaged in. I don't wish to contradict AGK, but he says consensus needs to be established. If he reviewed the talk page, history, and other forums, they would see that consensus has been established on this  point. I do not see how two removals of a unjustified tag, supported by 3 forums and existing consensus, over three days, is at all disruptive. No one involved found my behaviour disruptive (apart from THF who made many unsubstantiated claims against myself and other editors of good  standing). I also do not see how this block is in any way beneficial for the project, and that there is no parity of action between myself,  Jehochman (no block, 3 reverts of tag, no block required) and THF  (multiple reverts of tag, pointy BLP tag, refusing to accept consensus,  etc). I would also like to echo the sentiments of Jehochman expressed here, and would like to join the discussion at Talk:Waterboarding. Jehochman expresses the current consensus here. I also note that there is no 0RR or 1RR in place, so a sanction for edit warring with two edits, supported by consensus and discussion, over  three days is unwarranted. I'd be hard pushed to agree that two edits in three days against the consensus is edit warring (note  that isn't the case with THF and his WP:TE). I feel this is a misunderstanding on AGKs part and hope it is shortly overturned. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat


 * I originally posted this as an unblock request, was advised to do this instead. Please see User Talk:Verbal. I'd rather this is dealt with quickly and minimum of fuss. I also not Jehochman was given a chance to defend himself (which is proper), I'd have appreciated the same treatment (considering the parity of our actions) via a notice or warning. As it is I've reposted the above unblock request which was procedurally closed by Sandstein. I'd also like to note the lack of support AGK has been given of his remedy in this matter in general. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Verbal

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.


 * Thanks TS. I think I got the sanction bit wrong and it should be "48-hour block at AE". Sorry about that, but they'll probably work it out. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems is also appealing, perhaps they should be merged? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to thank Sandstein for the advice, so thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone add a reply to Ludwigs: Please note that my behaviour was very different: only two removals, entirely supported by consensus etc, over the course of three days - with no complaint. Some might say I'd learnt my lesson. I don't generally find this trying to rehash old, settled, arguments very productive or helpful. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Also, to MastCell: Please don't forget Jehochman who is under threat of sanction for behaviour "worse" than mine. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Verbal: I'm sorry, if you think it's too extreme I'll go and tone it down a bit. I just find that particular behavior very frustrating, and I've been feeling that frustration acutely, recently.  I honestly don't care to get you in trouble, i just want you to stop it.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense!!
What nonsense!!--Sophroniscus (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've realised it was nonsense, and that you'll be more productive in future. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aubrey de Grey
Thanks for fixing my ref !

I use a notepad doc for those and copy and paste - preview doesnt show the refs and I forgot to check the bottom once i saved

Good work !

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge tag?
Regarding this edit: Are you sure? While there seems to be some discussion over merging Anti-aging movement into Life extension (that tag is still here), there seems to be little dicsussion over merging Life extension into Anti-aging (which just redirects to Life extension at present). Gabbe (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Kary Mullis
Inserting false information into articles is considered vandalism. Mullis does not state anything about human factor in global warming in the source given, unless I missed it on both my watchings of the video (used as the source for the text) and the readthrough of the text which accompanies it, in which case you could provide, as asked in my edit summaries, a time stamp for where this supposed statement comes from. Please do not revert it again as you are inserting false information into the article. Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't vandalism. It's edit warring and should stop. Please use the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If 3RR doesn't put a stop to it, I would suggest AN/I. There's no excuse for this tendentious behaviour, and this is hardly the user's first bout of it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name
Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.
If Sheldrake's page can be called pseudoscience in one post before mine, then I can call it hypothesis. Quit being a small mind. It is relevant, and only takes 1 kB of text. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:FORUM. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support - good to see not everyone's lost their mind - was starting to wonder if I'd lost mine. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend avoiding interacting with Abd except on article talk pages, and even then only address the article issues. It is too easy to be sidetracked by his dense and rambling prose and behaviour. If he puts inappropriate warnings on your talk, simply remove with a civil note that they are inappropriate or ask another to review and remove on your behalf. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I've basically told both of them to stay off my talk page and plan to stay well away from his - just needed a 3PO because (despite cleaning up their mess) I was looking like the ass. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all getting quite out of hand. Template:Cloud computing has been vandalised yet again and all the IfD tags have been removed from the images along with the trademark warning, while the permissive licensing and categories have been replaced. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * {ºUser|Moonriddengirl}} is a bit of an expert on this kind of thing, might be worth asking her advice. Obviously the tags should be restored. If it continues ANI is probably the next stop. Remember to keep requests for review about the edits and not the editor (although you should mention the acknowledged COI) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I'm kinda over it now this debacle has unfolded... don't see much point wasting my time gathering evidence if all it takes is one admin to bury it, at their behest, even as other editors & admins protest. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then again, we'll see what happens -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 23:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute
Thank-you for you involvement in this article. I am trying to steer us towards consensus and away from the current round ping-pong reverts that has been going on for some time. You have made two edits to the article relating to subjects for which there are extended discussions on the talk page. It would really help us if you could read these discussions, and explain why you feel that position A is correct and position B is wrong or v.v., so that we can move towards that consensus. -- TerryE (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute also the subject of an RfC.
 * see Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute
 * BTW, I like the Erdős number -- impressive. -- TerryE (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting on the talk page, but I was also rather hoping that you would address the material point of the RfC and the discussion following, rather than a statement that MOS applies. (BTW, if you read MOS, you will see that it does explicitly allow the use of Dr, so citing this as a reason for deletion seems rather perverse to me.)  What I was rather hoping for was a response to the RfC that is why a guideline specifically for Bios should be mandatory across all articles (and take precedence over a guideline which is for all articles).  Re your Erdős number, I only did maths to first degree level, but I did have a meal once with JHC when I was secretary of the Archimedeans society at Uni, so I have shaken the hand of a +1, (and also 2 handshakes away from a US President; 3 from the current one.)  :LoL:  -- TerryE (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Hi, I'd noticed you've been doing a bit or work on acupuncture and I thought I'd check your opinion on a couple of other articles that seem a bit suspicious. While there's been alot of refining of the acupuncture article, I've had a look at Medical acupuncture and Veterinary acupuncture and they seem to be full of shaky claims. Another I've just come across is Hippotherapy which seems to make big claims without substantive fact. I don't know enough about acupuncture to make informed changes on the first two articles (Other than writing PLACEBO in big letters), and am tempted to delete huge swathes of Hippotherapy. Any ideas where to start Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One place to start is when you see any scientific or medical claims, follow the guidelines at WP:MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SCIRS
I have made a stab at adapting WP:MEDRS for more general scientific topics at User:2over0/SCIRS. For reasons I may or may not be able to recall at the moment, you crossed my mind when I was considering other editors who might be interested in working on such a thing. The page is strictly preliminary for now, but this invitation to take a look and offer suggestions, comments, and improvements is open to everyone. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical Computer Science
Re: my edit. There's a discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics about this change. Feel free to participate. Thanks,  Jwesley 78 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Following the discussion, I re-implemented the change and invited you to comment on the Talk page. Thank you! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported
Here. Mitsube (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Neutrality is disputed"
Verbal, with this edit, you added a tag to the article stating: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."

You failed to state what why you believed the article to lack neutrality, and you have not made a single post to the talk page, despite adding this and other tags to the article. Next time you use a tag, please state why you are doing so. It is important that other editors can see that you are not using tags as a badge of shame. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY violations?
Would you please take a look at these diffs? 

I've been reviewing the policies and I believe that Smatprt's strategy of wedging in references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, and I also think it's misclassified as to the particular genre of WP:FRINGE it is. It appears that he's following my edits and reverting them. I've revert one, but I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate your perspective before I do anything further. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I am not "following" Tom. I have these pages on my watchlist as I have edited them. In fact, it appears that Tom is trying to delete or reclassify all mentions of the SAQ minority viewpoint from various wikipedia articles which I have edited: [], [], [] and []. Regarding the first and second links, Historical revisionism and Fringe theory, even though we are on opposite sides of this issue, I hope you recall that you participated in/led this discussion where a consensus developed that the SAQ was an example of a Fringe Theory/Historical revisionism []. It was one of your rewrites, in fact, that used the term "dangerously revisionist", which you then had me check the quote to the reference (which I did). Please note also that the regular editors of the Historical revisionism page had never suggested that that the example was improper in any way. In any case, here is a link to a mainstream reference that uses the term "revisionist" in describing the SAQ [] (paragraph 5), and one that uses the same term in reference to authorship questions in general [] (second to last paragraph). Tom is clearly using my edit history, following me around to pages he has never participated in, and reverting my edits. This behavior started after I filed a RFC/u against him, so I am wondering if this is a case of WP:STALK or WP:HARASS? As I said above, I realize we are on separate sides of the SAQ issue in general, but I believe you are pretty consistent when it comes to your respect for wiki policies. So in the spirit of good faith, I'd appreciate your input on this. Smatprt (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is typical of you to accuse your critics of doing what you do. I am using the SAQ "What links here" to find unwarranted linkage in violation of WP:ONEWAY, where your edits were made months and weeks ago. You reverted my edits within hours, proving that you use my user contribution page to follow my edits. In any case, these unwarranted mentions of the SAQ and Oxford-as-Shakespeare are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, and no vote by any number of drive-by editors that you rely on for support can change that. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, you really need to learn how to set the preferences on your watch list. As you note, I have edited those pages, so my preferences are set so they AUTOMATICALLY appear on my watch list. I was on those pages and made edits. You came along later and reverted them. Period. And the fact remains that after the RFC/u was closed, you now are going to pages I have edited and reverting those edits. Whether it's a week or a month later, it's still a simple reversion. The only time days/weeks/etc come into play is when 3RR is being discussed, which it is not. Please continue to research these things. It would really help you to avoid making incorrect accusations like this. Smatprt (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet it's OK for you to accuse me of stalking you? You live in another world. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Aloha!
Been wondering where you have been - how am I supposed to round up a rousing chorus of Kill the Humans without you? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticism
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chiropractic controversy and criticism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Minus 1
Wow. You have the most sexy maths of all time there. Polargeo (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I missed something... <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too! William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your userbox "e to the i pi" durr :)Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)#
 * Two irrationals and an imaginary making the rational integer -1 mathematical beauty. Polargeo (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a spikedmath comic about this, but I can't find it right now. I'd rather it had -1 and 0 in there :) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

10 June 2010
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anthony (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where? I can't find it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Jclemens. talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Outline goings-on
Hi. I'd still really appreciate your input on the questions at User_talk:Verbal/Archive_3. We need thoughtful input there, in order to move forward.

I'm not sure what to make of your recent deletions, so have asked Karanacs for input, at User talk:Karanacs. We all need to communicate, in order to move this issue beyond the stagnation the RfC (and page set) is currently in. Please and thank you! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't deleted anything. I'll have a look, but the problem seems to be an editor ignoring current policy and forcing his view on others, rather than the state of the RfC. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have taken it here in an attempt to get the problems sorted. I mean no ill-will, and hope this is resolved peacefully and efficiently. Valyard (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem, I'll keep it in a sandbox until tomorrow or something, got to go myself too. I apologise if it was the incorrect place to take it, and do not believe you have acted in bad faith. Good night Valyard (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd reccomend WP:FTN. It's their bread and butter. Also, please leave a note at ANI if you haven't already. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, will put it on FTN when you are next available. Now get to bed, your tiredness is showing in your typing ;) Valyard (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FTN
As I said in my previous message above, I don't mind friend. I'm stepping back from the article and will trust your judgement as a more experienced editor. It appears somebody else has added sources to the Old Souls one anyway, other one still needs improving though Valyard (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ok I didn't see that one. Thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

language editions
Why were the list of language editions removed from Arnold Ehret? Zanze123 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

cough
Hi, cough is my magic word for making edits go away that I don't feel are constructive on my talkpage, after I have read them of cource. I dislike all that linking to agf and wp civil and such, I know were they all are and I don't need linking to them. The other issue was the claim that I reverted anything with a misleading edit summary on the article...I did not touch the content. I just did a blind edit in an attempt to stop the reverting, I didn't touch the content just added a full stop. I also didn't name anyone about tag teaming and it was just a general comment not pointed at anyone. It was again just another nudge towards discussion and consensus. I do appreciate your comments on my talkpage as to going forward and I am very happy to go forward in that vein as in fresh start, yes. Cool. ok. Feel free to remove this once you have read it. I also have other issues at the moment regarding my user name as it is now common knowledge to business associates and I am actually considering migration and I know wiki users understand the jargon but since the issue came up I am reading and removing dispute type comments. Your comments are appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What claim about a misleading edit? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit summary I think you meant) Please do not make accusations of tag teaming, it is not WP:CIVIL and does not assume good faith. I note that your revert does not contain a valid rationale either. User;Verbaldiff

No worries, just it wasn't a revert. perhaps I should have added.. This one (blind edit) Please move to discussion on the talkpage... anyway lets forget about it and as you suggest, start afresh in a spirit of friendly good will, yes, cool. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. Thanks! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Special Status
When you say Brandon has "no special status to override community discussion"...actually he does. He is an admin, which means he can close a discussion if he sees fit. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 10:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins cannot close an ongoing discussion against consensus, with a summary against consensus, not can they place a special note at the top asking people to ignore the discussion below because it goes against their preferred version. That is not what admins are for. Admins can take part normally. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Projection
Your comment about "projection" at Talk:Futanari is capable of being read as a very unpleasant personal attack. Please would you clarify or refactor your comment? Thanks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is no such thing. SWR doesn't like the image and has projected onto it features that do not objectively exist to further his position, you agree with him because you also don't like the image, and have been influenced by his projection of features that do not exist. No personal attack involved. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no apology, but I'm glad this is resolved. For the record, I'm sorry you were offended. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I had to come here to see the apology because I was seeing this through my watchlist and thought I missed something. :) I do now see an apology from Verbal after the ty one.  I'm sorry but this is a strange conversation.  Hi Verbal!  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Old debates
Please don't try to sidetrack a general and intendedly constructive proposal by rehashing old debates. I know we disagree over the Futanari image -- I said my piece and failed to convince the majority -- now can't we just agree to disagree and get on with improving the encyclopaedia. Please? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I think it is very relevant, and not a side issue. Policy should reflect practice, and new processes should respect legal content. I agree a policy would be useful, but not in the issue that gave rise to the debate. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that, partly because I really don't understand your reasoning. A clearcut process, whatever it is, would have aided the Futanari case because it would have been clear that SWR had either followed it or not, and either way we would not have had to have a discussion about whether his actions were the right ones.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, placing the copyvio tag on a page which is clearly not a copyvio is disruptive. Doing it repeatedly is very disruptive. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I see. Are you perchance arguing that the image was so clearly legal that even to question its legality was ipso facto disruptive?  If so, then, as you know, I disagree.  However, that still does not demonstrate that there is no room for the procedure I suggest.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you mean a process along the lines of "report it to the relevant authorities, and if you like the WikiMedia Foundation at this email address" I think any other process would be extremely ill advised. Repeats of SWR behaviour by anyone should lead to an immediate NLT block. This is already covered by NLT (keep legal things off wikipedia), but a one sentence clarification about illegal content couldn't hurt. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And if it's clearly illegal (not the case here) it would be WP:VANDALISM. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are certainly procedures for dealing with some kinds of inappropriate content. My propositions are that (1) there needs to be clear and authoritative guidance on illegal content (2) there needs to be a space where the legality or otherwise of content can be discussed and a decision developed.  The fact that procedures can be abused does not mean that we should not have procedures.  There are well-developed mechanisms for dealing with such abuses.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said, 2 is very very dangerous for anyone involved. They would simply be opening themselves up to prosecution. Keep it off wiki, per our current policy. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuing this here..
Hi Verbal, in case you missed my comments, congratualtions about the new baby. I want pictures sent to me please (I'm serious too), if you don't mind sending me some. When is the young one due? I've been begging, yes begging my kid's to honor us with grandchildren. :) They said they are going to start trying now.  They had to wait until a bunch of my DIL friend's and family member got married. Go figure because I had a hard time understanding this reasoning too. :)  With the health situations and our ages, we want to be able to enjoy a little person while we can. I'll let you know if this ever actually happens though. Oh well, they are right about waiting and enjoying each other and other things first. Boy was that hard to say.:) Anyways, don't forget to send pictures, keep in mind, when the child is born you can forget about sleep, eating hot food and lots of other things. Sorry for the silliness I have here, couldn't help myself.  Congratualtions again to both of you, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw and thanks. You'll probably know when it happens as I'll probably stop editing wikipedia - not too long now :) More when I have more time (21 years?). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Heck my son is 30 now and it's amazing I still have time to edit. Once you have a child, even when they marry, they are still your baby! :)  Enjoy him or her, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Gore Effect" POV tag removal
This is to advise you that I have removed the tag you applied here. As there appears to be no active talk section designated by you to address resolution of this dispute per Wikipedia guidelines for dispute resolution, if you wish to re-instate the tag, please establish a designated "dispute" topic within article talk stating the basis for the tag insertion in order to facilitate a resolution. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed it as there was no dispute, despite the huge level of dispute on the talk page... ok. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WQA notification
I have mentioned you here. Unomi (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. Maybe you missed my edit summary? I should have copied it to your talk page. Best, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I help?
Hi, I'm looking to get into some new articles and noticed how the conversation here has gone. It seems like a lot of long term editors are being chased away lately which I think is sad to see. If i can help out anywhere please let me know. I'm tired of the BS that has been occupying way too much of my time lately. Hope all is well with you and yours, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, when's the baby due? I hope you will make an announcement when the time comes, please. :)-- Crohnie Gal Talk  22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC and Lawrence Solomon
WMC has been asked previously not to edit the Lawrence Solomon article. Solomon has complained about WMC in his newspaper column and I've been told (but haven't seen it myself) that WMC has responded with some hostile comments towards Solomon on his personal blog. The Solomon stuff is but one in a series of iffy behaviors by WMC when it comes to following WP:BLP when it involves global warming contrarians. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who has asked and where? You can't just ban people without discussion. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was discussion. Check further up on the article talk page.  Actually, we prefer that people who may have untoward motives when it comes to the BLPs of people they disagree with self-ban.  Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. Cla68 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you and others should self ban from the entire topic? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you feel I have untoward motives? If so, please explain. Cla68 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as much as WMC. Possibly more so. I have no idea. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you feel that way. Cla68 (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You sound like ELIZA. I don't know, trying to force expert editors making a good edits that you disagree with off a page? End of conversation. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please read this thread before you consider removing the "environmentalist" word from the Solomon article. Cla68 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there that counts as WP:RS. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What is Cla on about? Cla, can you provide diffs for these mysterious "bans", please? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia is written in English
Use different words for what you want to say, don't fucking pretend they mean something they don't.- Wolfkeeper 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The hell? If you didn't have 30,000 contribs, Wolfkeeper, I would have reverted this as vandalism. -- King Öomie  15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could both you and Wolfkeeper please cool it over at Homeopathy? There is plenty of talk, and it really does not matter all that much which version is up while we work out a compromise. Preferably one that uses neither formulation, as treat might be ambiguous and claims to treat is clunky, but that is just my opinion. If I recall correctly, exactly this issue has been discussed in the archives - it might be worth seeing what arguments people have made in the past. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise I was being heated, if I came across that way I apologise. Of the two, claims to treat is superior and has most support in the discussion. I'm open to alternatives, though not prescribe as that is also a loaded medicalised term. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which bit about the wikipedia not being an experiment in democracy don't you understand?- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have any references for this.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not verifiable.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So far as I am concerned you're simply abusing your editing privileges. Simply having a vote on the talk page doesn't change reality and the policies do not permit you to create wikiality simply by deciding that (say) black = white and rewriting the wiki. I don't give a shit that you 'feel' it is a better phrasing, it is wrong.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, 'editors' like you make me sick.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you ok? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wait you fixed it. Oh, never mind, sorry.- Wolfkeeper 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Er ok. I think. I hope it's all ok now. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheeses Wolf, what the hell was that about? This was way beyond what I've ever seen as normal behaviour from you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we add treat to words to avoid, now? I am still catching up on the talkpage, but the article looks like something I hope we can all live with (except maybe some whiches that need to be burned). This set of changes are definitely for the better. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we add you make me sick to words to avoid? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected
I just semi-protected your talkpage in the hopes that that vandal will get bored and wander off soon. If you would prefer that it not be, please just let me know or request at Requests for page protection. I confess I do not recall at the moment what was your preference last time this came up. My apologies if this is not it. Also, if you happen to file an abuse report with that guy's ISP before I can get around to it, please let me know. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How odd. Is it just a random revert to a previous version? I couldn't see anything interesting in the action. Is it Caleb again or something I've missed? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is CM's style and IP range. I have always assumed that he is reverting back to some random previous version, but I do not think I ever actually checked. I am lifting all my semi-protections from last night manually (WP:BEANS, but he can read protection logs). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In another life
A long time ago, we used to edit together towards the same ends. I am left leaning, and I interpreted some of your edits, which supported mine, as being of the same persuasion. I'm trying to reconcile that with your censorial pro-corporate stance on the aspartame pages. Perhaps your account was hijacked? TickleMeister (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. My account hasn't been highjacked, and I would like to work with you on aspartame. For example, at the parent company article (spelling escapes me right now!) you added sources and together we managed to refine it to something better. I'd like to work with you still. You have piqued my interest as to your previous account! I wont go looking though as I respect fresh starts ... although this one could have gone better. I'm willing to start fresh, but you need to realise you have to discuss these edits first and that in this case the science currently doesn't go as far as you'd maybe like (I hope this is coming across right). We need to wait for the FSA to report, for example, and the article can be updated then. As to seizures it could probably be integrated, but it needs massaging on the talk page first. You can email me if you want to talk privately, and I will respect that. Best, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will email you. I sense you are different to some of the other editors there. BTW, just now found this interesting essay TickleMeister (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you ping me here when you do, I've not received anything yet. Best, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to think carefully about what I want to say to you. In the meantime, I think it's best if I spend my time at sourcewatch.org where I can put the non-industry viewpoint without undue interference from lobbyists. I expect that will take me some time. TickleMeister (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you decided against emailing me? Best, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. When I'm finished at aspartame on SW, we'll see. In the meantime, you may want to try to reconcile your edits on aspartame with the fact that its approval was largely due to the efforts of the GOP and its apparatchiks — this explains some of the connections. The drumbeat against it continues unabated, eg in today's news: TickleMeister (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Outline of cell biology
What exactly do you wish to see referenced of the Outline of cell biology page? Please don't tell me you want to reference every single definition? Cause in my opinion that's a HUGE waste of time. This (and pages like it) are simple glossary/nav page that link to main articles as it's primary purpose, and you should be able to reference the material on the article pages. Because of this I think the tag is ref improve tag is just unneeded clutter. Earthdirt (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Every assertion needs a reliable source. Personally I think all outlines are a huge waste of time, but if we are to have them they must follow the rules. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that outlines are sort of a waste of time, I disagree that glossaries are, which is what this outline is. If you think it's such a waste of time, why are you spending so much time there? There are tons of cell biology articles you could be adding content to. I made this glossary awhile back simply as a way to go through the cell biology articles, it was actually really fun (and scary) to see the poor shape of this subject's articles. For instance Interphase was one paragraph of nonsense. I see that you don't like the moss cell picture I used in the lead. May I ask what you are looking for? I think the moss cell photo is actually a beautiful and dynamic photo that really captures the essence of a plant cell and when I added it originally (before you deleted it the first time) it wasn't used anywhere else. I suppose the ref improve tag will have to stay there cluttering up the top, citing single sentence definitions is not in my job description. Earthdirt (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was renamed without consensus (most likely) then please move it back to the glossary name and I'll support you and help you improve the article. If you need help moving let me know. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See earliest history of the page for the original name, "List of basic cell biology topics".
 * All the pages currently called "Outline of foo", were originally titled "List of basic foo topics" (or "Foo basic topics" or similar). All these pages have now grown into a variety of structures, from annotated lists (eg Outline of cell biology and Outline of forestry and Outline of Buddhism) to the more plain list-format topic "outlines" (eg Outline of anarchism and Outline of economics and the far-less developed Outline of biology).
 * As I've said before, I have no strong preference for article title (I agree that "outlines" is problematic, but so is "basic topic list", "overview", and all other variations we've tried or discussed), but this set of related articles should share a naming convention of some sort.
 * However, they are not "glossaries", as that term is currently used at Wikipedia. The items listed at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries are almost all alphabetical glossaries (e.g. Glossary of architecture and Glossary of climbing terms and Glossary of Buddhism); they are not structured-overviews of a topic.
 * Sorry for jumping in. As ever, I hope my providing details will help everyone see the forest, instead of just a few trees.
 * (Side note to Verbal: Please please stop describing all the pages ("outlines" or whatever the hell we're calling them) in such sweeping negative generalizations as "all outlines are a huge waste of time": Some are great (most of those listed above), and some are completely missing-the-point and should be deleted (Outline of Google, sigh), and some are worth discussing. -- Nuance is required, damnit!)
 * Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This one is more clearly a glossary. THey should all be named back, then assessed on their merits. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While called outlines, they are all a huge waste of time. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the title convention of "Outline" offends you, let's concentrate on that. If a single editor has infuriated you, perhaps concentrate on him. If navigational pages as a whole are of no interest to you, then please stop trying to convince everyone else that we should also have no interest in them.
 * I spent almost an hour writing the above, trying to be clear and concise, with checked history and good examples. These curt gross-generalization dismissals are beneath you, and are insulting to everyone who do find value in the pages in question. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the pages themselves may be useful (cf outline of cell biology), yet the whole outline issue and the generic outlines are a waste. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm....I've been away for the Fourth of July. I agree with Quiddity that it probably wouldn't be appropriate to rename this a glossary for his stated reasons, and I think this might be more useful the way it is structured, as a topical outline. I think topic outlines are best when they are more than just a list of words/links. Earthdirt (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal is a prolific editor. Imagine the progress that would be made if Verbal switched from his disruptive tactics to helping to develop outlines to the quality-level of the Outline of cell biology. The Transhumanist 20:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: In case it gets lost in your watchlist, please see User talk:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft. Ta :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Morning

 * Thanks for the above. A note for your morning: There is no rush - quite the opposite! I'd hugely appreciate it if you took the time to read the whole page at User:Quiddity/Navigational pages RfC, and each of the subsections at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, before replying to any of them. In both cases, I've been trying a reduce an exceptionally large issue down to an absorbable amount of information.
 * Regarding the Navigational pages: there really are many groups of pages, that get exactly the same kind of complaints, from just a few editors, perennially. (E.g. there are 3 editors who really dislike having glossaries at Wikipedia. Almost everyone else says either that they're fine & useful here (albeit most are still underdeveloped), or that it should be discussed further before any decisions are made. I won't elaborate here, but can point you towards the long history whenever you like. :)
 * I look forward to hearing from you, when you're friendly and considered. Please take your time! -- Quiddity (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge/Culture and the arts, the pages you are trying to delist were originally created as "List of basic X topics". Check the history, e.g. + . You are the editor who most recently changed the title of those 3 pages (you changed them to a wholly original title).
 * Hence, those articles are part of the set of "List of basic topics", and should be listed at that page. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not outlines, and not part of the set. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you moved them! What part of my explanation was unclear? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to move them back, start a discussion. I will oppose it, and they were not originally "outlines". I don't think this is worth the candle though. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be perfectly happy to rename them back to the actual original, eg "List of basic drawing topics". Ditto for all the "outlines". The title is just a side-issue. Keeping the page-set as a page-set, is my only intent in replacing those 3 links. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love for that to happen, as it would move them back into the list framework and they can be integrated/merged with existing lists more easily or expanded/reduced to lists appropriate to the topic. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "redundant", which pages are you suggesting are redundant to which other pages? Outlines to Indexes, or Outlines to Overviews, or ? (P.s. Sorry for pinging at your talkpage - I know how irritating the "you have new messages" banner can be. Hopefully you understand my intent of keeping the actual discussion thread over there as clear as possible.. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my answer may be considered a less than helpful "yes". <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As in the TV show Knightmare? Ahhh, the hilarity :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. Sidestep left! Spellcasting! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Where am I?" This must explain my propensity for asking for directions when driving (and my fear of renfairs?). Youtube is full of gold. (Oh, for a higher res screensaver and remix album...) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Whilst I completely agree that we should not be duplicating intro content, the edits here ( and ), mean that your editsummaries here ( and ) are incorrect. It's a small detail, but with the contentious nature of the whole dispute, I feel it's important. (I'd suggest using an editsummary such as "remove duplicate lead per discussions" or something similar). Hope that makes sense. We did previously confirm the details of satisfying the gfdl-requirements, with an admin at the copyvio noticeboard. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson incident evidence at ArbCom case
A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained here

If you already know about this, or don't know and don't care, I apologize for bothering you - I had originally planned to notify only those who made reference to the Watson incident, but after seeing someone who unhappy to be mentioned and not notified, I decided to err on the side of caution.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. It seems ridiculous that people are contesting this obvious rubbish so fiercely. As a general point, people should always be notified if they are mentioned in an arbcom forum. Look at the mess Abd made by not doing this. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Edit War
Thanks for the reminder. Hopefully the issue in question has now been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
Hi, Verbal, I don't know all the back story or the cast of characters on Race and intelligence, having been a Wikipedian for only three months, but I think you are making an important point about the full protection of that article on the article talk page. I hope the issue can be resolved in a way that contributes to sourced, neutral editing of the article, and wish you well in any administrative remedies you are pursuing that are beyond my ken. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed?
I've replied at User talk:Quiddity. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we at least clear that the Propaedia has never been removed?
 * If you do still believe it was removed at some point, could you explain why, or point towards a sentence or reference? The article at History of the Encyclopædia Britannica seems fairly clear, but perhaps it contains errors (?). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Outline (summary) talk page
I have posted a moderately extensive comment about your recent tagging of this article - for which you offered no rationale. This is your chance to do that, if you like. Basically, I have protested both tags, and promised to work, shortly, on trying to improve the article in one major way - or document that this improvement is not yet possible due to lack of secondary sources.

Your thoughtful response might be helpful to the general cause of improving the article. Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response didn't reference the policies. I'm hopeful the article can be improved too, and see no reason to take the article to AfD. Hopefully your edits will address the issues and then the tags can be removed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Category Basic topic lists
I am wondering what your rationale was behind removing the redirect of Category:Basic topic lists to Category:Outlines. This would seem to be a counterproductive fork of Category:Outlines. Thanks for your thoughts. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 08:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Outlines are the counterproductive fork. The list pages are not outlines. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, checking the page I think you are referring to, it is currently an outline. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already Category:Wikipedia core topics and, for instance, Core topics - 1,000. Could you consider how your new category Category:Basic topic lists fits into the existing core topics treatment? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 10:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The "core" and "basic" lists are unrelated. For "core", see Template:Core topics, which are all editor-oriented pages (made for the purposes of Version 1.0 Editorial Team).
 * In contrast, the "basic" topic lists are all intended for readers as learning and navigation aids, and for editors to find redlinks that could use writing. (their name, and existence, are disputed by some editors, and endorsed by others)


 * The "List of basic x topics" lists were all renamed (without sufficient consensus) to "Outline of x" in 2008/2009 (see and  for the page moves of the Science list). Some have been moved back to their old name (or to something close, eg List of topics in mathematics). There is a draft RfC being argued over, at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, which will hopefully resolve some of the issues associated with these lists (whatever they're called). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Please be aware that you may have breached the 3RR rule.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not, please don't make false accusations. If you are seeking to remind me of 3RR, then I'm aware, thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Given your last response and this one I have reported you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Verbal_reported_by_User:slatersteven_.28Result:_.29.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read my response, which is I have not broken 3RR. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think you're counting correctly there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you addressing me or SS? If me I'll gladly correct any mistake I've made. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect he's talking to SS ... I just let SS know that he needs to better understand 3RR, lest the "boy crying wolf" or "football player who shall not be named" situations occur. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Verbal, but I wasn't sure enough of my counting to comment on the EW report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I will not be reverting again - I try not to go above 2 except in obvious cases of vandalism or BLP abuse. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, possibly digging my own grave it could be argued that adding the POV tag was a revert, but I added it as a new edit in good faith due to a new dispute to a new formulation, and it was not my intent to revert to a previous version. I haven't checked if this was the case. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An indisputable fourth revert is this removal of the failed verification tags, but, as you'll see, the article is protected and, therefore, blocking you is not necessary. --  tariq abjotu  20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and Tariq, I'm sure you have seen the discussion on slatersteven's talkpage? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is disputable Tariqabjotu, please don't comment here again - thanks. If you were to block me it would just be an example of spite and a further abuse of tools. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh it seems Tariqabjotu did block me. Pathetic. Simply spite and WP:POINTy disruption. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, next time I'll leave you blocked so it doesn't look so pointy. Oh, please; damned if you do, damned if you don't. --  tariq abjotu  20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have damned you if you didn't. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan noted above that she thought you did break the 3RR, even though she wasn't sure of her counting. I was, and I can clearly point to four reverts (I even pointed you to the fourth one). That alone is why I blocked you, and it was after examining the history surrounding the incident. As is often the case, particularly after it involves blocking someone, I still find myself looking at the history again (call it a bit of worry that I didn't do the wrong thing), and at that point I conceded that a protection would work just fine and perhaps be more appropriate, considering the longer term circumstances. By the way, if you truly don't want me to respond to you, stop responding to me in your edit summaries. --  tariq abjotu  20:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked Sarek in good faith to explain above but they didn't, so I don't see how I can respond to them. If Sarek thought there was a problem, and it seems Sarek did, then it might have been helpful if they could have clarified and perhaps I could have rectified the problem. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, there were no four reverts. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have appeared a bit annoyed I'm sorry, it's because I'm a bit annoyed. I didn't think I'd crossed any lines. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"it was mostly for running around screaming "pathetic pointy spite" afterwards." I didn't realise I was screaming. The block/unblock/protection could easily be viewed as pointy disruption based on my previous interaction with that editor. If you think "pathetic" is too strong I apologise and will strike, but I am allowed to say that it is, in my opinion, pointy, if I think it is. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
 * 1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
 * 1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
 * 1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

1 and 4 were not reverts. 1 added multiple new sources, and 4 was a compromise edit including both designations. If you had a problem with this you could have discussed it at AN3 or here. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it helps, in future I will try to be more careful and try to keep my temper (which wasn't egregiously out of control!) even cooler in future. I know Sarek is a good admin and doing what they think is best, but I do have an honestly held difference of opinion on here. The article is now protected, and there has been an explosion of discussion there and across other pages seeking to address the issues, and the bigger issue is ensuring the page doesn't become a whitewash. I do still dispute Tariq's actions, but I would have restricted myself to my replies at AN3 and here. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Verbal, I counted it as 4 as well. Reverts aren't just putting the same words back, making changes but not really changing the substance is normally treated as a revert (having seen too many of these cases).  Its compounded by the fact that you didn't engage in the talk page at all, you just reverted/partially edited.  You know I support your instincts and editing practice and have done so over multiple articles.  But this time you called it wrong for whatever reason.  Best to just acknowledge it and move on.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But what you're saying is completely incorrect. Meshing two ideas into one edit so that both sides have their wish is the goal of consensus editing: Verbal did that, therefore 3RR does not exist. We've already gone over this elsewhere. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you disagree with it (which is fine) but its not black ad white. Each edit inserted "political" without qualification against the talk agreement to "quasi-political" (the exact words of a citation).  So we have 4 insertions of standalone "political with no discussion.  Also edit 4 could be interpreted as making a mockery of the whole process.  Its not the important issue though.  If there is a discussion going on, its always best to join that discussion rather than get into an edit war (even if you are changing the edits).  In this case there had been discussion and the version agreed between several editors as a holding operation.  It was not (and is still not) clear that the citations support "political" and it needs to be discussed.  Net effect of all this is that we are going to have to go through the whole 'Far Right" nonsense all over again--<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In case 1 and 4 I made substantial changes. Four is most definitely not a revert by any stretch of the rulebook. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:REVERT, "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits....More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." So, it doesn't matter that you added new sources, you also restored the "political" description that had been previously removed. While 4 may have been a compromise, again, it restored information that other people had attempted to remove, hence a revert. But as I said, I didn't primarily block for the 4RR, since Tariqabjotu had already evaluated that -- I blocked for your actions afterward, and that's what we're waiting on an uninvolved admin to evaluate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So the disputed 3RR breech has nothing to do with it? I'm afraid I still disagree with you about 4 being a revert at all. I've already apologised to anyone that found my initial "outbust" intemperate. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a contributing factor, yes, but it was not the primary reason. If you had been venting like that and I had not counted 4 reverts, I probably would have ignored it, but as I thought you were over the line, it appeared to be that you were being disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to bed now, I hope this can be resolved amicably in the meantime with the block being lifted. Goodnight. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Arguments against a supernatural reality */
Is "longstanding" reasonable justification to undo an edit without further discussion (which I invited at great effort calling attention to the edit on the discussion page) and replace it with a grammatically incorrect and unclear prior version? As a noob editor, is my massive ignorance missing important factors? Should I have justified my edit elsewhere, differently, anything?

Please help me understand your thinking on the undo and why you thought no reply on the discussion page was warranted or if you responded can point me to that response?BurntSynapse (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BurntSynapse (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request notification
Please be aware of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 67.80.250.138 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Holiday
I'm unlikely to be editing for a while as my baby arrived today, and discovered I've got some kind of heart infection (nothing very serious as far as I know). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! and look after yourself --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  18:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm too young for this! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and sorry to hear that (respectively). :) As for the latter, if you ever need free medical information on the Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About, Wikipedia is here for you. MastCell Talk 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! (And get well soon). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. About the first thing, anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and all the best. Jack 1314 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your new little girl. You can now forget about a good nights sleep, hot meals etc. :)  Sorry to hear about the other.  My son had something like that too and it worked out fine.  I hope it's minor for you too.  Take care of yourself and keep me updated if you would, about both.  I still would love to see a picture of your darling little girl if you are up to emailing one to me.  Take care Verbal, and again congratulations on your new daughter's arrival. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, and you thought Wikipedia could keep you up at night with all the whining and crying! Congrats. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bit late congratulations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, heartfelt congratulations, best wishes to you and yours. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is pretty late since I've been on a wikibreak, but congratulations Verbal, and I hope to see you back soon.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation
I have filed a request for arbitration on this question, naming you as one of the interested parties. Would you please sign your acceptance? Otherwise, let me know and I’ll remove your name from the request. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Userbox
I've userfied the userbox you requested to User:Verbal/userboxes/ARSbackfire. Feel free to move it into a different heading if you like. - Vianello (Talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind if I ask why you want it, Verbal? I checked to make sure no one was using it before I requested that it be deleted.   <font color="#225DC8">Snotty <font color="#994400">Wong  speak 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No response?  <font color="#00AA00">Snotty <font color="#33CC33">Wong  chat 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Shakespeare authorship question, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Edit warring
You seem to be engaging in a slow edit war on Portal:Contents (including header and footer) and on Jim B. Tucker, among others. Although I think your version is preferable in each of those cases, and I've said so on the respective talk pages, consensus seems to be against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the context of editing the article on Allopathy
I had made some major changes in the article Allopathic medicine. The changes had been reverted by you probably deeming it as an act of vandalism. I have reintroduced the changes after discussing on the discussion page. I did not do it in a piecemeal manner however. I would be glad if you can revisit the article and discuss about the changes that I have made.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 19:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I welcome you to join the ongoing discussion Allopathy and its Difference with Modern Scientific Medicine on the talk page of Allopathic medicine.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 06:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question mediation
Dear user,

This is a quick message to inform you that I have taken the Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation. I will be spending a day or so trying to get an understanding of the dispute and create a framework to take the discussion forward.

Please understand that mediation is not a quick process and that a fair amount of patience is required. If any of you have any question feel free to contact me by email through the wiki interface.

Many Thanks

Your Mediator - Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding tags you placed on "Licefreee!"article
Hello Verbal, You have tagged and retagged Licefreee!, asserting that it reads like a press release. (It's not a press release, it's just a stub article.) Within the article is a referenced sentence regarding the disputed efficacy of homeopathic preparations. In your view what is needed for you to remove those tags? Additionally, the notability tag. What criteria are you using? In my view the product is notable for being an insecticide which is wholly non-toxic to humans, for being an Oregon product, and for having a decent market share of the head-lice prep market. Please, let me know how to improve this stub. Leoniana (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's up with this?
User:Verbal/userboxes/ARSbackfire - Why did you have this restored to your userspace? <font color="#DD0000">Snotty <font color="#648113">Wong communicate 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. (So your bot doesn't archive it) <font color="#25900D">Snotty <font color="#33CC33">Wong  communicate 15:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump again. Where've you been?  <font color="#00AA00">Snotty <font color="#225DC8">Wong  comment 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent comment from Roger Davies
Verbal, in case you haven't seen, Roger Davies posted this at the Climate Change Proposed Decision talk page on the subject of evidence sub-pages in user space. I thought you might want to know about it, and possibly also to look at the remedy on sub-pages that is proposed. EdChem (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nelsons (homeopathy)
Hi there, as a previous critical editor of this article I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the recent edit history and give an opnion. A passing editor has removed nearly all the article, most of which was cited history and factual description, in the name of removing my 'COI' interest. I do not beleive the removed material was POV or puffery, and I presume you thought similarly as you removed or edited various things on the article for the same reason, but didn't wipe out four fifths of the article content. I have reverted these edits as I think they are extreme. But given my COI with this article it would be helpful if someone else, preferably someone with a critical eye, could take a look as well. I am well aware of the COI difficulty I have with this article and genuinely just want to put the best, most useful wikipedia article up, not push the company POV. I am a wikipedian who happens to work at the company, not someone working there trying to push it. In the past I' ve left alone edits I disagreed with, and if the article needs rewriting for POV I'll accept that. But I really can't see how wholesale deletion of cited material helps the project in any way, as we've gone from a useful article to a stub of no real use to the reader. Thanks in advance for any assistance you are able to provide here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

List
Hi! I saw you were involved with a previous nomination for deletion of List of suicides in fiction, and felt you should be informed of Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

LTNS
I just ran across this crap, and thought I'd drop you a note. I hope this place is better than those days. Probably not. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 05:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)