User talk:Verbal/Archive 3

Contact hyperthermia
Dear Verbal,

I have modified the foot notes you asked for as requested. I thought that was enough to remove the signs you have posted in my article. If you want to verify neutrality, you can check the bibliography I have writen, or learn more on the actual situation of electrotherapy today. Actually, I am an expert on the matter. I would appreciate you could remove those notes. Thank you in advance. Regards, Maria09--María09 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way: if you want, I can provide you with the websites of two or three manufacturers of these type of devices, so you can compare the information by yourself. I am not defending any position in particular, by I sincerely feel Wikipedia and patients worldwide must know more about the possible therapeutical options besides drugs. Don´t you think?--María09 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Take care
Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip :) I'll leave it as it is (got this after my last edit). Verbal   chat  12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assistance
I saw your responses on Elonka's page and saw the chat option. I may be in the wrong area but would like assistance as shown on my user talk page. Thanks in advance. JayDeeComedy (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
... for this.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry
You reverts begin to look disruptive. I may take measures to stop them. Ruslik (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC is still open, and I justified the revert on the talk page. CW made no post before or after his edit. Until the RfC is closed at the very least the redirect should stay in place. As there has been little involvement in the RfC it would suggest it needs relisting and advertised in sufficient places in a neutral manner. I would be very happy for you to take any of those steps. Verbal   chat  14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow up
Got it changed. Thank you for the assistance on that. Now what I would like to do is take the info from the "user page" and have it on it's own page as a wiki article or bio. I have several 3rd party links from news organizations and such on Comedian Jay Dee. Do I just need to copy and paste those links in here to complete that process? Thanks in advanceBruce Jennings (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Aloemps ANI
I have mentioned your handling of Aloemps here. Thanks for doing what you did. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Verbal   chat  16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits in Osteopathy article
Your reversed my recent edits in this article, noting that they were possible advertising. Why? There is no claim of lack of notability for Andrew Weil or Robert C. Fulford, and both would easily be kept in an AfD discussion, in my opinion (Weil’s is certainly more notable). Also, if you look at my contributions, you’ll see that there is no COI issue here. The edits are meaningful and well intentioned, and will ensure that Fulford’s article will not be tagged as an orphan soon (which I am also trying to avoid).--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take that on board. Verbal   chat  16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Type O Positive
Not to be too pedantic about it, but two is a thinko and vicarious is a (hilarious) malapropism. But those are not bannable, so carry on fixing them. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking spoonerism, but you're such a pendent. Verbal   chat  21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Positively spooning up the speakerisms, that is I. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You may want to contribute
Please see this sockpuppet investigation. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your actions on Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine
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. Artw (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the link to point to the section. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

LLM
That editor stated somewhere (AE, SSU - if you feel like reading more of their prose, feel free to search it out) that they were instrumental in the rename of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Personally, I would say that Fyslee and Backin72 were the main movers behind that particular resolution, though of course yours truly played some little role. Given that I fairly quickly stopped caring to read more than cursorily anything LLM had to say ... well. Anyway, it would probably be better just to let that particular issue go; the trash sourcing on Parapsychology still needs work, though. Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sense About Science
Please note that "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus". If you have a good reason for excluding Monbiot's well-known and notable criticism of Sense About Science, then place it on the talk page - you did not do this, so BRD does not apply. Note that Wikipedia is not censored to protect organisations against criticism; this is especially worth noting considering the COI self-edits that have been made to the page. Fences and windows (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can justify it as a "well known" and "notable" complaint, then do so on the talk page. The section i removed seemed to give undue weight and hence violate policy. Verbal   chat  22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you or someone else watching this page check the relevance of this Nature article? I can get it in a couple of days, but I wanna work on that article now. Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry - I assume you've dealt with this now. I have the paper if you're still interested. Verbal   chat  16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep - short news piece about their peer review thing, used it for elaboration in the Projects section. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sense About Science
Thanks for inserting the response in a NPOV manner; I would've done it, but was just on my way out. Fences and windows (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the thanks. Verbal   chat  16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Flanagan
Re. Patrick Flanagan. Concerning Pat Flanagan's degree claims these can be seen on his phisciences website. Concerning the claim of Food and Drug Administration claim for his nutritional products, they cannot be sold in the U.S. without approval, which can be found at numerous sites selling his products. Is there any need to reduce the amount of information on the page? I don't think so.
 * His own website is not a WP:RS for anything (save for his own outlandish beliefs), and if what you say is true about the FDA then the statement conveys no information and is merely advertising. This conversation should move to the Patrick Flanagan talk page. Verbal   chat  08:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. i accept your criticisms for now. I hope you don't want to delete the article though, since Pat Flanagan is a pretty interesting guy. Flumstead (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked for input at FTN, but there is a lot of stuff there right now. Verbal   chat  09:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Justify Assertion of Vandalism
I am very disappointed that you chose to revert an edit I made on the grounds of vandalism - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&action=history edit at 08:18 (UK) on 3rd April. The edit was simply reverting a deletion of an image that allegedly contained a racial slur - it was far from apparent where any racial slur could possibly have arisen since it appeared to be a genuine google search response to a query against Obama. I have no desire to enterinto an edit war on this since, frankly, I have better things to do with my time, but I am very interested to know why you believe this image contains a racial slur - frankly I just can't see how it can possibly do so. DaveK@BTC (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the image. You knowingly restored the image (referring to the slur in your ES) = vandalism. I hope you will apologise once you have done so. Verbal   chat  22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the image as shown in the article and I may be naive but all I saw was a set of search results documenting the highest ranked sites referencing the new President of the USA. As far as I am concerned I reinstated in good faith a picture that was deleted on grounds of a racial slur I could not detect - this deletion was itself potentially vandalism as far as I was concerned but rather than suggest this to be the case I took a conservative approach and simply reinstated the image requesting justification that there was a racial slur (certainly not vandalism by any reasonable measure).  It seems that although the vast majority of people using this site will never enlarge the image and, even when doing so, will not see anything amiss, there are words in the image that are depicting a vandalised version of a Wikipedia entry.  Your reaction was overly heavy-handed and totally inappropriate.  The original deletion was also unhelful and excessivley lazy since the better edit would have been to replace the rather useful image with one that was not including childish taunts.  No apology necessary other than for your heavy-handed approach.  DaveK@BTC (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it looks now that the offending image showing the vandalized article has been replaced by the admin who originally uploaded it. He says it was just coincidence that the screenshot was taken in the two minute window the vandalism was up. Let's assume it was just that and move on. LeadSongDog come howl  05:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the image has been replaced, and I'm sure the original uploader did it in good faith, but to restore the image after being told it contained a racial slur was an act that requires an apology. The racial slur was not in any way hidden and was repeated 3 times in capitals. Feel free to take my action to ANI for review. I correctly reverted your edit as vandalism. If you knowingly insert any more racism into wikipedia I will ask for you to be blocked. Verbal   chat  08:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to move on but would appreciate that Verbal reflects on approach and doesn't hit hard on a good faith editor again. For my part I always give editors I don't recognise benefit of doubt unless history shows a track-record of dubious edits; I also try to respond to questions posed by edits with answers.  DaveK@BTC (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You acted to restore a racial slur to a page. The initial insert was accidental, but your knowing revert was vandalism. I acted with restraint by not asking for you to be banned outright. I am assuming good faith by assuming you aren't a racist. It was a very unintelligent edit, and one that does harm to the project. Verbal   chat  08:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are assuming I knew - it horrifies me to think that I would knowingly make a racial edit. I did not realise it was a slur, only that it had been alleged to be one and my edit summary made it clear that I was asking for the assertion it was a slur to be justified.  Had you reverted my edit with a comment like "open the picture up and read it really carefully" I would have become better informed, more than happy with your edit, and not had my integrity impugned. DaveK@BTC (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was marked racist, you restored it without checking, acknowledging the warning that it was racist in your edit summary. That is your problem, and shows at the very least a lack of care. I hope you learn from this. The revert was fully justified. This discussion is closed. Verbal   chat  09:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathic remedies
Verbal, the way to rename a category is to nominate it at WP:CFD and await the outcome.

Instead, you created a new Category:Homeopathic preparations and emptied Category:Homeopathic remedies, before nominating the remedies category for deletion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_2.

Your pre-emtive depoipulation of the actegory was widely condemned in the CFD debate, so I repopulated it last night ... only to find that you depopulated Category:Homeopathic remedies again today.

Please stop this. The CFD process exists to allow a consensus decision to to be made on the future of categories, and if there is a consensus to delete Category:Homeopathic remedies, then a bot will do the work.

Your contributions are welcome at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_2, but please stop trying to pre-empt the outcome of that process. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops I missed the discussion as I had forgotten to watchlist it. I started renaming things before there realising there was a process similar to AfD, I thought it was an uncontroversial edit. It was in no way "pre-emptive", although I find the lack of WP:AGF on that forum alarming. My reason for renaming was as stated plus I felt the category was too narrow, hence the broader inclusion criterion. For example, Muscovy Duck is in no way a "remedy", so I'll restore the remedy category as it was and move substances used in preparing homeopathic preparations (which I added) to my new category, and make one a sub category. I don't feel after the character assassination and bad faith that there is any point pushing for deletion in this CfD, and realise that this is partly due to a series of misunderstandings on my part. A note dropped here earlier explaining things might have helped. Yours, Verbal   chat  18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Feel free to withdraw my nomination. Verbal   chat  18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Verbal -- glad to have your explanation and apology. Just so you know, I did assume that you were proceeding in good faith, since you brought it to CFD. But, as I explained, the series of steps you took did objectively have the effect of preempting the CFD process, even though that may not have been your "intent". And your comments here confirm that you did, in fact, regard the CFD as a "minor housekeeping task" (as I put it in the CFD). In any event, I'm glad to know that it was basically the result of your misunderstandings about how Category issues are supposed to be dealt with. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI incident
Hi. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for sticking up for civility in the discussion I was participating in with Uncle G. To be honest, I deserved the tutorial regarding my reason for the AfD, despite not deserving the way in which it was delivered. I have since apologized to all relevant parties, but wanted you to know that I admire your courage in standing up for someone in a situation where you were not personally involved. People have different personality types, and I don't want to diminish anyone's contributions on Wikipedia, nor be viewed as some prickly, fragile egomaniac. I have therefore withdrawn my concern for the article on AfD which started all this, reccomended closing the ANI where the discussion quickly got out of hand, and am now cleaning up the rest of the mess I made by apologizing to the people whose time I wasted, and for whom I did not show a basic level of respect (Unomi). Thanks again for your support, I can't tell you how much better it made me feel to read your comments. Have a good week. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Orthopathy
I originally said the article needed NPOV because I thought it would be redirected soon and I dispute the redirects. Then it was redirected again, deleting the NPOV dispute. I returned that but realized it did not need to be there. Originally it was deleted because of 'copyright infringement.' If there is another reason you think it is not NPOV now, please explain why.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd again
Re, Verbal, do not remove the comments of other editors from Talk pages. See TALK, specifically, "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section," and then the next section, TALK, which provides no exception covering what you did. You may revert any edit by a banned editor, on your belief that the editor is banned. However, you may not then revert the contributions of registered editors that refer to, quote, or even replace the banned editor's contributions. If those actions by other editors are disruptive, you may consider the legitimate editor responsible, and complain about it, but Talk page deletion as you did is rejected by the community, and sanctions could result. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly proper behaviour, you are enabling a banned editor and editing by proxy for them. Verbal   chat  09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Okay, here we go. Verbal, can you suggest someone who could mediate this dispute? Ideally, someone you think I might trust, but that's not absolutely necessary; it should be someone you trust. --Abd (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute. You are violating wikpedia policy, if you stop I will stop. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I will report you to whichever venue is appropriate if you continue. I suggest you don't wikilawyer any material from Jed the "expert" onto wikipedia. Verbal   chat  13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to stand on an oxymoron? "No, there is no dispute. You are wrong." I've solicited other comment, which I will review before deciding how to proceed. You have an opportunity here to suggest a mediator (perhaps just to decide if there is a dispute or not? really, Verbal, this is beyond the pale), you can take it or leave it. I very, very rarely warn editors on their Talk pages. This was a formal notice, be aware of that, it prepares the way for further process if needed. Stonewalling is precisely what leads to further process. Thanks for the promise not to edit war, and though you already edit warred, we don't need to resolve that, what is done is done. You have the right to take my behavior to an appropriate forum, but do be aware that I've already been taken to AN/I over similar behavior and was confirmed, and, as I recall, the complaining editor was blocked or at least warned. What I did is not "proxying." Think it over, consult with other knowledgeable editors, take your time. But be careful. --Abd (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a formal notice of anything, and the comment you put in quotes has never been said by me. What I've said is not an oxymoron. Take me to ANI if you want, but be aware your behaviour will quickly become the focus. You are proxy editing for a banned user, and you should stop. Having meta-discussions on article talk pages is not what they are for. Again, please stop. You have made it almost impossible to edit the cold fusion page due to your ownership and excessive verbiage that suffocates all debate on the talk page. The RfC you recently initiated has shown what little support you have for your actions. Lastly, do not threaten other editors. Because of the threats you are no longer welcome on my talk page. Verbal   chat  16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I sure could use your opinion/help here
Hi Verbal, I have an IP who is adding his/her POV into the Chickenpox article. When I looked at the edit the first time I reverted the beginning because I felt it doesn't say what the reference says. The rest is added with no refs at all and is just opinion. I stated this in the edit summary and also requested that refs be used to be added back. I got an unsigned message on my talk page that was a bit over the top to me. I don't do edit wars so would appreciate it if you have the time, if you would take a look at these edits and give your opinion at the article Chickenpox. To me the editor is giving medical direction and using the project for some POV, NEEM I think. I just noticed that the editor reinserted the EL with mispellings intact. If I remember correctly the EL doesn't follow WP:EL either. I look forward to your opinion on this. I know there are policies involved but to be honest it's early here and I can't get them to the front of my brain at the moment. :) Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am having a terrible problem with what I call Brain Fart I was curious and searched to see if there was an article about this, and there is, who would have thunk it?! :). I do use this term though a bit differently since my diagnosis with Crohn's disease. It is used by quite a few of my friends in a joking manner.  All this time I thought it was my own saying.  Today I can't seem to remember the smallest things needed to edit here, guess I should take a break for today. :)  Thank you though for helping with this matter.  I really appreciate it. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. At the moment I don't think this needs any talk page discussion, unless they insist on warring or someone else adds it thinking it's good. Then we would have to ask them to justify it, outlining our concerns. Just ignore the comment on your TP, it means you're doing it right. Verbal   chat  14:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I must be doing something today since I now have an IP complaining about a revert I did on Cadillac Deville during my vandal patrol this morning. I don't know squat about cars other than if I think they are pretty or not, that they need gas to run, usual maintenance and so on.  But the IP reverted me even though it was reverted also by anothe editor for POV, OR and other policy problems.  The article is horrible to be honest.  Bad references that I don't think are WP:RS, that is where there are refs, which there isn't too many of.  There's lots of white spaces do to lots of info boxes.  Well I just think it really bad.  I made a comment on the talk page about things to see if others with understanding of the subject matter would step up but only IP's are editing for the most part and regular editors seemed to have given up on the article from what I read on the talk page.  Oh well, thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gas? Cars run on petrol - which is a fluid, not a gas. Some people... ;) Verbal   chat  19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG
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/Abd and JzG/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/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DeLaughterDO
Hi there,

i note that you've put a comment on this users page about repeating edits made by a blocked user. After repeated removal of content from a number of articles this morning, a temporary block has been placed on this user at my request, but I am suspicious as he also blanked the administrator request page, despite me not telling him about it - which suggests he has prior knowledge of being blocked. This could mean the user is a sockpuppet of the previous user - do you have details of which article(s) this relates to?

Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Physician, possibly . I think there is enough for a SPI and checkuser, but I've never filed those before. Verbal   chat  10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also is a possibility... Have you filed an SPI before?  Verbal   chat


 * I've been involved in some, but not initiated them. I'll give it a look a bit later.  I've looked at the history of physician, and I agree - he's already been warned for sock puppetry on an IP adress. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And now too...  Verbal   chat  11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - in fact, I'd already spotted that report. I don't have time to dig into the history at present, but my first impression is that I can hear a lot of quacking. Regards, BencherliteTalk 11:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And another... . Sheesh! Verbal   chat  11:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - obviously already in progress, but you've got to admit he's persistent! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Death of John Michell (author)
Hello Verbal, I am just replying to you here, as you left a note on my Talk page. I do apologise for not quoting any source for John's death, but I see that the entry has now been made more detailed. I came to know of his death through an impeccable source, and logged in to edit the page, though it was difficult to know how to produce supporting evidence only twelve hours after his passing. Thank you for being so quick to spot what could have been misinformation, and I hope I have not caused too much stress for you while waiting for verification. I am rather new to the conventions of Wikipedia, but will try to learn more as I go along. g88keeper (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the note. Verbal   chat  12:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MERDS Whiplash
If you haven't done so already, could you please explain why you believe the information you removed in this edit here at the article Whiplash violates WP:MERDS. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are reports sent by Corporate Health Group Inc. Verbal   chat  20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

hi
hi, check bullrangifers page, may be of interest to you, i know how you love my contributions Macromonkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.104.100 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Grow up, :) Verbal   chat  20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, no need to revert to personal attacks my friend 81.153.104.100 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an aspiration for you, not an attack. All the best, Verbal   chat  20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, no need to get nasty, I mean I've made no references to your flaws, I've treated you with nothing but polite enthusiasm, Kind regards 81.153.104.100 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I was trying to be funny. But honestly, going about socking isn't going to help. If I were you I'd start a clean account and edit other articles, avoiding me and BRifier. Starting socks to be disruptive, or repeating the same behaviour isn't going to get you anywhere and will probably just get you frustrated. I have no hard feelings towards you, and I think some of your edits were very good, and you even contributed new articles. Take a break (I did recently when I got fed up) and come back as a new editor, but you will be blocked if you are obviously "macromonkey". I think what I'm saying is in line with alternate accounts, but if you never cause trouble you'll never be suspected - I'm not encouraging you to game the system. Wikipedia is probably a waste of time anyway :) Verbal   chat  20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know you were, I got the joke :). I'm sorry if I gave you a bit of abuse when I was an editor; some of the way things work got to me a bit, and in some ways wikipedia is a site that is in favour of skeptics more, but lets not get into that debate :). Don't get me wrong, the world needs skeptics, but it's annoying when a consensus, even if biased, wins over another (probably equally biased) idea. Nah I snap easily, which is why I come back and apologise when I cool down. I don't hold anything against you, we are just at separate ends of the spectrum in our beliefs. I do have an alternate account, as may be evident by now, but it is more to carry out the contributions that I wanted to make, whereas the macromonkey account became too deeply involved in warring, so i just thought ah well, lets just get blocked and start anew. But I am still making good contribs :) All the best, 81.153.104.100 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So to continue this new good spirit, why don't you remove the comment you've left on BRs page? See you around, Verbal   chat  20:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, good luck with the editing 81.153.104.100 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Europe
Hi, I just wanted to know why you feel the current surtitle on the Europe article, second section, does not reflect an unsourced opinion and give undue weight to one pov. Perhaps I chose the wrote Wikipedia tag, but I am not a tag-guro.--Npovshark (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. Sorry that I reverted one of your edits but it came up on the Anti-Vandalism tool and looked like vandalism. --Kyle (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problem. I just left a note on your talk too. All the best, Verbal   chat  09:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Tine_2.0
Re your not vote on this AfD, I've asked why you think notability is established, as if it is then I'll change my !vote - as that is my main concern (advertising can be cleaned up). I hope you don't think this is badgering of any kind. Thanks, Verbal   chat  08:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the comments and thought it was notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC) PS Sorry for taking so long.

Professional
why did you revert my edit ? the page is really dreadful, it starts with a specific definitions of a specific meaning from a single country and goes downhill from there. My edit was succinct and accurate and IMO a very good place to restart http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professional&diff=289436584&oldid=289323603 92.25.206.105 (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of link accepted by consensus at Martin Fleischmann
. Verbal, this was very extensively discussed in a discussion that has also received wide attention. You are removing a convenience link accepted by consensus; the copyright issue was conclusively rejected. Please revert your removal. --Abd (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the discussion where the copyright argument for this link was rejected, and it refers to other discussions. Open up the "Extended content" collapse box to see the discussion and notice that the conclusion was unanimous. Please revert, or, if someone else reverts you, leave it alone. Consider this a warning. --Abd (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please consider this mediation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-22/Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)#What_is_the_dispute.3F --CyclePat (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree
I was chiefly responsible for this case, and I'm also concerned. The concept was to give him another chance under well-defined conditions. But Guido doesn't seem to have grasped that his community ban was for very real disruption. I'm closely watching this; I hope he moves on very soon. Cool Hand Luke 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! I hope I haven't made things worse, as I'd like to see things like this work. In WP it seems if something fails once it is banned for all time, and I have a bad feeling about this as a test case. Best, Verbal   chat  16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the theory. I think clear limits would help many banned users. I hope it works out. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome-
ness. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never seen that before. Cheers, Verbal   chat  21:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable
Hi Verbal, Smith is plenty notable (as the creator of the 5-point protocol used in Acupuncture detoxification), easily meeting WP:N, and I'll write up a stub for him sometime. I discussed this with our mutual friend User:BullRangifer, but not on the article's talk page, which would've been the best place. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fleischmann
Your removal of this without comment is an acknowledgement that the warning has arrived, but it makes it hard to know whether you now understand the issue. Consensus can change, but this non-issue discussed extensively and you simply reheated an old red herring. It's hard to see this on the Fleischmann talk page because Abd was a bit hyperactive there, but quite a few people from outside the cold fusion war were involved in resolving this, including several admins and at some point Arbcom member John Vandenberg. Guy, who I believe first started this, made some accusations in public (and more to me in private email), but never substantiated them; so they were properly discarded. The thread where John Vandenberg finally resolved the question is at Talk:Martin Fleischmann. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My quick reading seemed to suggest that Abd suffocated the issue (hyperactive, as you say! He's been admonished for this by ArbCom, but does persist). The removal was meant as an acknowledgement. My initial removal was to do with a change of policy, but I believe it has been changed back. I think this site is not a good source, and I find it had to credit such a website with copyright permission. If they were to publish their permission on their website that would satisfy me, but Jed's word is not an RS! I believe that consensus in that discussion may not represent true wikipedia consensus, but without being involved it's hard to judge. The current status seems to be a fudge. It's not at all high on my list of priorities to sort this out though. Yours, Verbal   chat  12:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That section just ends with a long ramble by Abd. JV just says that (at least then) the copies matched. Abd even says in his post that copyright wasn't addressed (first thing, fortunately). Verbal   chat  14:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the whole discussion (sorry, being a responsible editor at Wikipedia sometimes involves some actual effort and reading, and, I assure you, reading it will only take a small fraction of the time it tok for me to research and write it), you will see that my final comments there were presentation of evidence as requested by Jayvdb. He requested information about copyright permission, expressing concern. The information was provided, and he looked at it, and ceased discussing copyvio, then went ahead and put some effort into verifying. Do you think he'd have dropped the legally important copyvio issue -- he pointed out that the discussion itself would increase legal risk if there were, in fact, copyvio there -- if he hadn't been satisfied, turning to what was, in comparison, a mere detail? I'm not going to bother him over what's obvious. Tell you what. Skip over what I wrote, just look at what others wrote. You are blowing smoke. You are presenting rationalizations, I conclude, whether you believe them (AGF requires me to assume this) or not. And we can see through it, and ArbComm isn't blind and will see as well, if the evidence is presented clearly. Do you think I'm capable of doing that, Verbal? I was not admonished by ArbComm, at all. I was "advised" to escalate more quickly. In other words, Verbal, I won't wait months to see if you will revise your approach, as I did with JzG, I'll go up the ladder promptly. My post, here, removed by you was step 1 in dispute resolution, and also a warning as required for summary process. Are we done? --Abd (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove your personal attack above, an attack doesn't seem to be any part of dispute resolution! I know where you stand on this Abd so please don't bother reiterating. I will not make any assumptions about JVs edits apart from what he wrote. I'm not interested in your views on ArbCom, sorry. Verbal   chat  15:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I conclude, from this, that we are done with direct negotiation, except for the allegation of personal attack. If you believe that the above is a personal attack, I presume you know what to do. I looked at it and don't see what I should remove. I give permission for you to bold the alleged attack, I will review and see if I should refactor. However, I have also gone over it and have altered what might be marginal, so you only need to bother with this if you (1) still want to maintain a charge of personal attack, with all that implies, and (2) you think it important enough. --Abd (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still an implied personal attack (rather obvious, putting it in brackets doesn't hide it). I don't have a problem with you, except for the suffocating verbosity that stifles conversation that ArbCom commented on. Please stop making it personal. I've emailed a few questions to a wiki copyright person and will continue the debate on approprate talk pages if/when they answer. I don't see what a content dispute has to do with ArbCom, nor really what a copyright dispute has to do with them. However, I don't find the whole thing very interesting. We can continue with direct negotiation on relevant talk pages. Marking something as a personal attack doesn't carry any further weight to me, I'd just rather you didn't - I'm not going to take you to task for such a minor thing. I respect Hans and his contribution, and have replied above. Thanks, Verbal   chat  16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi, Verbal. I added a section to Abd's userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing, and I would be interested in your comments on it. I invite you to participate in discussion on the talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I expect to be busy for a few days and was hoping to disengage a bit - but I'll have a look. Yours, Verbal   chat

Jimbo's talk page
I was just reading Jimbo's talk page and saw this comment by you. I know nothing about the dispute or any of the editors in question, but I am pretty sure you left the word "not" out of the first sentence. In other words, you meant other users should NOT leave such comments, etc. Right? 6SJ7 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, yes - that's what I meant ;) Thanks, I've changed it. I just saw someone make the opposite mistake, writing "not" twice... We averaged out correct. Verbal   chat  16:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Hi Verbal. My apologies for the revert of your constructive improvement to the Laundry ball article, and the general tone of our recent interactions. I'd assumed your third Laundry ball edit was the same as your previous two reverts. As a friendly suggestion to avoid the kind of confusion caused in both the Patrick Holford and the Laundry Ball situations, I'd suggest being a little less quick with the revert button. In the case of the Thabo Mbeki article, for example, you reverted both a constructive edit and a second one that probably warranted reversion, in one go. It's as if you looked only that the user had made a mistake, and undid everything they contributed, rather than looked at whether they may have done something constructive as well. The same applied to the Patrick Holford, where, although you may have disagreed with some of my contributions, you also reverted more, and clearly valid, contributions, as the same time. I know it's hard work and tiring keeping up with all the POV-pushing and vandalism on Wikipedia, but I think taking a second to WP:GOODFAITH, and to work with the constructive edits, would help reduce any problems. Otherwise, if the other user does the same (seeing you for example seemingly deliberately re-introducing factual errors, as I did with Patrick Holford), you simply have an edit war, a battle of egos, and two competing versions of the article in which both sides recognise flaws but are too stubborn to make the necessary improvements. :) Apologies again, and thanks for the constructive improvements to the articles since the edit warring was resolved. Greenman (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, all the best. Verbal   chat  18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TeamViewer
An article that you have been involved in editing, TeamViewer, 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. —Bkell (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on June 3 2009 to Frank Sontag
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TeamViewer
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is TeamViewer. 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 "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/TeamViewer. 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) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please begin discussion
You've made a revert. Are we going to be doing the same thing as last time? Please discuss your changes on the talk page so we end up building concensus. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

email
You've got mail. --CyclePat (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus
The problem with building consensus is that it requires communication. I've left a message on the talk page of EMFT (alternative therapy) and I've sent you an email. There's a saying "The ball is in you court". More precisely, I think I've offered some concessions. And I've also presented my supporting evidence to substantiate the inclusion of certain facts and "further readings". What I mean is that, I feel that I have proven a few points and that some of the information should be returned back within the article. Failing to disclose a refutation at this point make me feel like you agree. However, it would be nice to hear a statement which says this because it could mean you don't necessarily agree. This dilemma makes me feel like we're simply slowing down the consensus building process and for me feel like a form of disruption. In particular, I quote, Wp:Disrupt which states, "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" Albeit, in no way am I accusing you of this for our recent discussion. I'm trying to tread carefully to observe WP:AGF and trust you understand that I'm simply trying to pre-empt any problems future problems. I trust we understand there are many ways communication. Saying nothing to me, means you are willing to start the entire "revert" edit thing all over again. This isn't that fun. Nevertheless, I concede, it is a way of trying to build consensus. Hence, at this point of time, in particular for this next edit I'll be putting back some information which wasn't refuted back within the article. But please understand that working in this fashion is not at all peaceful and makes me feel hostile. --CyclePat (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than make edits that may be reverted, propose which specific things you want to restore on the talk page, explain why, and then we can discuss it without any chance of reverting by me or other editors. Verbal   chat  18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

IP edit to Homoeopathy
In your edit summary, you wondered if it was another homoeopath sock. Well, that IP has only made one edit so far, so I would assume good faith for the moment. But yeah, it would probably be a good idea to keep an eye out. The timing is just a little suspicious. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If I only had known ...
Homeopaths spend all day engaged in vigorous banging. Got it. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Vigorous banging as a way of increasing potency. Sounds nice. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can remember when carpenters were known for banging alot, but nowadays they do a lot of screwing, and they use battery operated toys to do it! ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you strike me hard I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Verbal   chat  17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content from Serratiopeptidase talk page
It would be appreciated if you would explain the rationale of your removal of comments posted by others from the 'Serratiopeptidase' talk page. WP:TPO appears to indicate that this should normally not be done. With kind regards, Terry0051 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TALK: Deleting material not relevant to improving the article. Comments should be on the topic of improving the page, not for discussing anecdotes. Verbal   chat  17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted that there was some anecdotal content in those posts, but what makes you conclude that they had nothing of relevance to improving the article? There is no intrinsic incompatibility between the two categories. Terry0051 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add anything you think is relevant to improving the article. Adding an explanation might help. Verbal   chat

hAl
I've reopened the issue on AN because this close was both unexpected and unjustified. I'd rather not have to waste more hours taking it to arbitration and then however many hours of the arbitrators as well. Not at all impressed. -- samj in out 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

gun violence
what's your basis for restoring the column? you claim it's relevant data - what's your source? or is that just based on your personal opinion? you reverted without any discussion on the talk page. i don't see that you've ever contributed to the article or discussion before. participation would be desireable before reverting in this dispute, without a rationale. Anastrophe (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your position is tenuous at best and has been roundly rejected. Verbal   chat  15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * really? three editors support inclusion, two editors reject inclusion. that's "roundly rejected"? are you an admin? i'm curious why you've jumped into this issue, never having participated before. please provide your WP:RS that the statistics in question are "relevant". otherwise, it would appear to be merely your personal opinion. that's not a policy-based rationale for reverting. Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the posting on the NPOV noticeboard. Discussion about articles should take place on the article talk pages, and noticeboards when relevant. The source for the figures meets WP:RS. Verbal   chat  15:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * fails relevance and npov however. but enough here. Anastrophe (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevance? Your POV is showing. Agreed, no more posts on this here thanks. Verbal   chat  16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Science and libel laws
Hey, I saw your libel-law userbox and, of course, I've been following with interest the events surrounding Simon Singh's libel case. Of course, I think the case should send a chill down the spine of any thinking individual. On the other hand, libel litigation has an interesting history in relation to non-mainstream medical practices, at least in the U.S. (you probably know this, so forgive the lecture).

The archetypal case was probably that of John R. Brinkley, the goat-gland guy (he was a big fan of xenotransplantation, specifically the orthotopic implantation of goat testicles into humans who had "lost their pep"). It's a fascinating story - if you haven't read the book Charlatan, by Pope Brock, you should check it out. The Kansas Medical Board tried to shut Brinkley down for the silly reason that he lacked a medical license, he was killing and maiming people left and right, and of course goat balls don't cure human disease. Not only did the medical board fail, but Brinkley almost became Governor of Kansas (with the power to appoint the medical board) by capitalizing on the attempt to close him down.

Brinkley came to the attention of Morris Fishbein, who was determined to stop him. Fishbein's tactic of choice was interesting - he basically printed an escalating series of attacks on Brinkley in JAMA, culminating with calling him a quack and essentially charging him with murder. The point was basically to goad Brinkley into filing a libel suit; ultimately, he obliged. With Brinkley under oath, in the setting of legal discovery for the libel trial, Fishbein's lawyers asked Brinkley a series of uncomfortable questions about his mortality rate, his training, and his general medical knowledge. Ultimately, while Brinkley won the libel judgment (and was awarded a nominal sum), his career of putting goat balls into people was effectively ended, because he had been forced in his own words, under penalty of perjury, to disclose that he was doing something dangerous, irresponsible, and totally useless.

The moral of the story is a bit difficult to define, I suppose, and I'd never suggest that a libel trial against Singh should become a forum for debating the scientific foundations of chiropractic - God knows that courts are the absolute worst environment for such discussions. But it's interesting context for the present-day issues, no? MastCell Talk 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This all gives the term "Pyrrhic victory" a delicious twist. Even if the BCA were to win, it would have effectively placed its foot in its own mouth, and then shot itself in the other foot. Not a pretty picture, but pretty hilarious. This type of bad publicity for the profession is priceless, and the entire profession worldwide will be paying that price for a long time. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW MastCell, if you want the libel-law userbox, just place this template in your userspace:  . -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref Fix
Change all broken f 1990 refs to

Welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NPOV...
"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth'". Please do not revert the "allegedly" I added to conspiracy theory. Skeptical Dude (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting Arthur Rubin, 'not in source; it's WP:OR to add "allegedly"'. See WP:BRD; your edit was removed, you shouldn't just restore it without addressing the concerns. Verbal   chat  14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept of neutral point of view requires that a source's view not be stated conclusively so the "allegedly" caveat is necessary. Skeptical Dude (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should attempt to justify your view on the article talk page. Even if your interpretation is correct, the addition of "allegedly" where you are placing it does not improve the article or address your concerns. Further discussion should take place on the article talk page. Verbal   chat  14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworded userbox
Hi there, I've been bold and reworded this userbox a bit more. Having userboxes with external links to lobbying organisations would be a bad precedent to set. I hope this is OK, but please feel free to revert me if you object strongly. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Verbal   chat  18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

AIV
Have you seen this? pablo hablo. 14:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Thanks for the note. Verbal   chat  15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ARS talk
You are welcome to start threads complaining about ARS in relevant places. However, your recent contributions to the page including and immediately following this edit are irrelevent to the question at hand, and actively distract from the discussion of that particular problem. Further, you reverted a neutral admin (me) attempting to separate your discussion from the problem, which is itself disruptive. Griping is one thing, although potentially an WP:AGF violation if done too fervently, but griping irrelevently in the middle of an unrelated thread is disruptive and inappropriate. Future disruptive editing to WT:ARS may result in a topic ban from that page. Jclemens (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was directly relevant to the page, and I have answered questions put to me in that thread. The WP:BAITing notwithstanding, I find your failure of good faith surprising. I think generally ARS is a good thing, but it has its problems. I'm sure if you read again you will see that my first reply was on topic, and I have remained civil despite baiting and tried to answer the points raised. As a first step in dispute resolution, threatening a topic ban is overkill. I'm not going to report you to WQA or anything though as I'm sure you'll reconsider. Verbal   chat  16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In what precise way did this edit bear specifically on the problem being addressed? Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This would have been a better first question. It is related as I'm trying to say that ARS is not the problem, and by extension the rescue tag (which I have used myself), it is a misuse of that tag and ARS. It seems there are a few editors who cause frequent problems for ARS. The tag itself is benign, and I have successfully used it myself to rescue an article up for deletion since joining ARS. It is directly related to Hipocrite's complaint. It was also a responses to the point made by FH, hence it followed his post. It was therefore a continuation of the discussion, being related and opening up the scope slightly. I will assume you have retracted the topic ban threat and we can now be friends. Thanks, Verbal   chat  17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did it occur to you, based on the responses your initial post to the thread had generated, tnat your message had not been adequately understood as conveying that message? How did you perceive your continued participation in the thread was helping answer the specific question about Ben Nyaumbe?
 * A topic ban threat isn't particularly in effect; it's simply a notice that I perceive an editor's current conduct as an actionable detriment to one specific part of Wikipedia, but not to the level that a block would be appropriate. My first action in relation to this thread, as you recall, was an attempt to separate it into two threads--not to delete your contributions as "vandalism," (which they clearly are not) but merely to separate them out from the specific question of Ben Nyaumbe.  Since you reverted that, this thread, in effect becomes the "discuss" part of WP:BRD.  I go back and forth on whether to include possible future consequences in a notification such as this; am I correct in perceiving that you perceive it as escalatory and unnecessary? Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oh, and though it was and will remain your right to bring up this conversation in other venues, I would not have recommended bringing it back up on the talk page; as I was not involved in that conversation, save the effort to segregate two issues into two threads, I will not be replying there. When I give behavioral admonishments, they're always directed to the perceived offender's talk page, as a way to balance between transparency and privacy. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have had a chilling effect with your threat - I was intially put off greatly, and still feel unjustifiably threatened - so I thought it worth mentioning on the thread so those involved could give me their views on whether I was out of order, and for full transparency in this issue. It seemed like the conversation was developing to me, and I understood the topic to be general, with a specific example of possible canvassing. Can the continued existence of the tag be justified asked Hipocrite, and the answer is yes because most editors use it properly. His questions and the topic were general, only the example was specific. If we were only discussing one instance then that should happen on CWs talk page, the AfD, or the article talk page. The fact it was on the ARS page suggests that it was a more general topic. I would advise that you don't make threats of this sort as a first edit, simply ask for clarification or just if teh person could stay on topic. Of course we can all be blocked if we break rules, and if you feel unhappy with the reply you can point out what you see as the problem and take it further as required. In fact, WP policies and guidelines demand that you assume good faith, at least initially! Verbal   chat  17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My ongoing counsel to you, then, is to avoid generalizing. By appearing to criticize the ARS in general ("There is a core of editors that through their actions in the name of this project, bring this project and wikipedia into disrepute. This was exemplified by the actions of some members of ARS in the recent Telepathy and war AfD") and not specifically dealing with the use of the rescue tag on the article that prompted the question, not making explicit your belief that such a "core of editors" is a minority, and by bringing up an unrelated example, your initial post had the unhelpful effect of diverting a specific discussion into a general one.  Posts up until the time I separated the threads didn't remedy any of these issues.
 * Yes, sometimes specific questions can be answered generally. On a talk page which is prone to contentious conversations, however, answering with the level of generalization you did was unhelpful.  It would almost certainly have been less inflamatory to focus on the specific question.  I'm still not clear on what you hoped to accomplish by bringing up "the recent Telepathy and war AfD" in your first post. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought "core" would have been clear, but no problem. I still hold that the comment was on topic and not disruptive. The example was not unrelated either, the tag was inappropriately placed and it led to some editors appearing that disrupted the AfD and caused upset to the article creator (he now thinks we're vandals for deleting the article). I should have made clear that the problems at the TaW AfD had the same root, as should be clear from the AfD - a misplaced ARS tag. I also thought I'd linked to the AfD but I hadn't, an oversight. Verbal   chat  18:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the advice to avoid unhelpful generalizations. I don't understand the threat to ban Verbal from WT:ARS. Surely anyone associated with that project understands that while it serves a potentially useful purpose, it is also vulnerable to abuse. In fact, most of the FAQ at WT:ARS deals with exactly the sort of issues that Verbal raised. If the response of the project to critical feedback is to threaten the complainant with a page ban, then I don't think that's a particularly helpful dynamic. Certainly "appearing to criticize the ARS in general" is not a bannable offense? MastCell Talk 18:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific issue was thread hijacking--Verbal's changed the thread title since I initially posted it. Anyone can criticize the ARS, and WT:ARS is a fine place to do it.  The disruption issue was doing so irrelevently in the middle of an unrelated thread, which unhelpfully brough defensive comments, rebuttals, etc. into that thread. And to the last point, I'm neither an ARS member nor acting at anyone's behest--I'd do the same thing in a similar circumstance on an entirely different talk page. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No thread hijacking took place. I've explained this to you. I advise you not to do the same thing anywhere else, as someone else might not be as forgiving as I am. I found your refactoring and retitling of my talk page comments rude, made them appear unrelated when they were not, and a violation of WP:TALK. I don't see any benefit in continuing this. In future, talk first and assume good faith. Verbal   chat  18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I gave the impression that whether or not thread hijacking had taken place was open to dispute; it is not. The warning against disruptive editing stands, the nuanced explanation and detailed conversation about exactly what you could have done differently is a courtesy, extended by me to you, and is the embodiment of WP:AGF in this situation.  That is, the point isn't to "discipline" or "punish" anyone, but rather to explain why your conduct was unhelpful and educate you how to avoid such outcomes in the future.  Your refusal to acknowledge that your approach was unproductive is unhelpful. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect: no thread highjacking took place, and it is of course open to dispute. Another administrator has already disputed your actions here. Your highly aggressive failure to assume good faith and continued failure to do so is more of a concern. I request that you now refrain from posting here. I'm very sorry that it's come to this. I will shortly archive this thread, and I hope you heed my advice. My revert of your edit was perfectly acceptable and in line with practice, and I'm sorry if you took offence but there has been no inappropriate action on my part in this matter. Verbal   chat  19:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

EFT
Hi, Verbal. I'd be grateful if you could give me specific reasons for your summary revert of my copyedit to this article. It was the consequence of careful time and effort. I did it both to clarify, and to heighten the lead's neutrality ('scare' quotes, for example, rarely help achieve either). Skeptical responses upon which you clearly place high value were not de-emphasized in my version, quite the contrary; and extreme claims of cure, which justifiably spark doubts in the sensible, were clearly referred to. Many thanks, in anticipation. Wingspeed (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant to post on the talk page but got sidetracked with other things (see above!) Verbal   chat  17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing the scare quotes. Can quite understand you got sidetracked on other things. Haste has not in this instance, as so often, I fear, aided the cause of clarity, neutrality or skepticism . ..


 * 1) The version you’ve reinstated credits EFT in its first sentence with being medicine: "EFT is psychotherapeutic alternative medicine." Somewhat startling, on the face of it. My version acknowledges its claims to be a form of “complementary psychotherapy.”


 * 2) Mine places the word pseudoscientic in the second sentence. The existing version relegates it to half-way through the final sentence


 * 3) The fact that more often than not EFT appears to be self-administered, raising obvious safety issues, is not mentioned in the existing version.


 * 4) The version you’ve reinstated merely makes vague reference to “thinking of negative emotions." It makes no mention of EFT’s heavy reliance on New Age affirmations.


 * 5) The existing version makes no reference to EFT’s claims to alleviate and cure physiological disfunction.


 * 6) Perfectly valid int links to  articles on emotion and physiology have been excised.


 * 7) "Energy meridians" in the final sentence is a pleonasm.


 * I’d still be grateful if you could address my request in the first sentence of my earlier message. And even more grateful if you might agree, on the grounds listed above, to a reinstatement of what I consider to be an improved version. Wingspeed (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I found your edit to be more like the introduction to a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Why not suggest your edits and the above points on the article talk page. I think the points you make above are good, but I'm a bit worn out today so please accept my apology for not engaging propoerly as I should. The above unexpected discussion took a lot out of me, and it is wrong that you should suffer. As I said I see your points about AltMed. Verbal   chat  20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
Could you please respond to the question I have left a question for you at Talk:Reincarnation research? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert
Apologies for the accidental revert here. While viewing recent diffs it seems I mistakenly hit the rollback button. Time for bed I think. Johnfos (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, feel free to revert back. Thanks. Verbal   chat  09:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Ok, no problem we may leave the tag there!! Deal!! Jackiestud (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have exceeded WP:3RR, and you have also reinserted contentious (WP:OR) material with no sources or sources which don't meet WP:RS. This is a violation of WP:BLP. I have raised this issue at the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPN. The material must be removed or fully sourced to RS. Verbal   chat  19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

my talk p.
You removed a semi-reasonable comment, one to which I intended to respond, along with the rest which indeed should not have been included. Please go back there and fix it without destroying anything else in the process. DGG (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, no problem. Verbal   chat  21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No offence was intended, the material you are interested in is also on the AfD, so you may prefer to comment there. Yours, Verbal   chat  21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I recognize that it was just an accident. DGG (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

SCIgen article
Hey Verbal,

Sorry to bother you but you have seemed a level headed editor in the past and if you had time I wanted to run something past you. As you can probably see the same old people are still trying to vandalise the wessex inst. page with their personal grudges but I have noticed that on another article, called SCIgen there was also a listing for wessex regarding this vidia nonsense even though the program (Which generates fake abstracts) was not made until over 10 years after the event! Looking at the page in general its just become a weapon for people with an axe to grind and its only sources are peoples personal hate-blogs. While it survived one deletion attempt in 2005 I think this article is non-notable and just a useless hate page against certain academics which regardless of who is right has no place on wikipedia. I was wondering if you would not mind helping me try to get it deleted? Im a little green on these kind of issues. Thanks --Curuxz (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stars4change
I saw that you left a warning at User:Stars4change in April over inappropriate use of talk pages. I've warned him twice as well but w/o effect it seems.Fuzbaby (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much we can do except keep an eye on it for now. Verbal   chat  16:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

homeopathy talk
"Heavily diluted" is well sourced to WP:RS, including leading homeopathic organisations, so it should remain in the lead. <-- There are also reliable sources that say not all homeopathy involves heavy dilution. A flat statement as currently given in the first sentence is a misleading over-generalization and it should be either qualified or, better, the issue should be removed from the first sentence. "it should remain in the lead" <-- Attempting to hide or prematurely terminate discussion of such topics is not constructive and damages Wikipedia. "Further disruption and baiting will be reported to WP:AE." <-- I doubt it. Disruptive baiting is routinely practiced and usually not sanctioned. "off topic comments, about tea for example" <-- I don't agree with your perception of what is and is not "off topic". "JW, your second and third sentences scream bad faith and are uncivil" <-- I made factual statements that were perfectly civil. Politely discussing the actions of editors, particularly actions that disrupt the editing process, is not uncivil...it is a way of pointing out problems....which is the first step towards correcting problems. "scream bad faith" <-- Please explain how you reached this conclusion. If an editor, on one day, makes a clearly wrong (clear to people who are knowledgeable about homeopathy) yet authoritative statement about homeopathy and then, on a later day (after their error has been noted by other editors) retracts their false claim, then evidence exists in the page history to document their ignorance of the subject. How is discussion of the existence of such things bad faith? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then contribute to a section discussing that on the talk page (hint, not a section about tea). My talk page is not the place to debate article issues. If you put comments in a thread that are off the topic of the thread expect them to be ignored. Feel free to copy your comment to a new or relevant thread on the talk page. However, note that the talk page is covered by WP:AE so you won't be given the same leeway you've enjoyed on user talk pages. Part of the reason why I like the discussion to stay where it should be. Re your 'factual statements', they are your opinion, not fact, and they do not improve the talk page atmosphere. We do not want the conversation to descend to levels we have witnessed elsewhere. There are several topics conflated in this post, so I'll try to be brief. 1, Discuss the article on the article talk page, in appropriate or new threads. 2, If you want behavioural advice I'm more than willing to tutor you. For an example, rather than making general statements of bad faith as you did, give specific examples with diffs. You say "Politely discussing the actions of editors, particularly actions that disrupt the editing process, is not uncivil" and I agree. What you did was not polite to my British sensibilities. Thanks, Verbal   chat  16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "making general statements of bad faith as you did" <-- I made no statements in bad faith. The type of disruptive behavior I mentioned can be documented by looking at the edit history. Gently discussing such disruptive behavior is an effective way of getting some people to examine their behavior. "give specific examples with diffs" <-- Yes, for hard-core POV pushers it comes down to that in the end, but some editors can take hints and change their behavior in response to gentle reminders. I prefer gentle reminders because, unlike some other editors, I'd feel foolish using threats and bluster in an attempt to enforce ownership of a Wikipedia page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Query re: links
Hi Verbal. Do you know if it's possible to have a WP link that shows different text to what the link is? It sometimes seems quite difficult to include a WP link in a grammatically appropriate way... also if I want to link to a sub-link of the page do I have to have the whole ugly link (like on the Sagan page) or can I hide the sub-link bit? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's quite easy, you put a | (bar/pipe, not lemon) between the terms: placebo therapy is made by placebo therapy, although this is an example of an inappropriate use... For a sublink use # after the name, and then write the section name: Homeopathy is Homeopathy , but using both together is nicer Homeopathic dilutions debate, which is formed by Homoeopathic dilutions debate . Verbal   chat  12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha!! So what appears after the pipe within the square brackets appears in the article, but the bit before the pipe mark is the actual link.  That's great.  Thanks Verbal.  Blippy (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't
Please don't comment on my talk page. I don't find your comments helpful or reasonable, so please kind and don't make them on my talk page. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't make accusations based on what you perceive to be other peoples religious beliefs. It is highly inappropriate and against wikipedia policy. I will refrain from commenting on your talk page, but I will still post warnings and notifications if required. If you continue in this vein you will be blocked again. Verbal   chat  14:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud and the spirituality section at Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira
Here is the dif with one edit summary "we had agreed to keep with tags. the sources are very reliabel". You should probably take this to the talk page if you haven't already and outline problems with the section there. I'm not familiar enough with the history of the sourcing on the page to feel like it would be appropriate to revert (only because I am too lazy to check the references or lack of them right now.) Sifaka   talk  04:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I've removed the material again and commented on both the talk page and the WP:BLPN. This user seems to have a huge problem understanding WP:RS and WP:OR, especially across feminist spirituality pages. Verbal   chat  08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, these features os Simone´s spirituality are very well known; that´s nothing new with that. PLEASE leave it there --and besides sources fully account this. She dressess herslf only in white clothing since 1974!! because fo her spiritual master an she has a very close link to christianity --this is widely known here in Brasil (there are other female singers such as Clara Nunes who do the same and in her state Bahia this i also a religion of everyday life). It´s like (or even much more) Madonna and Cabala, it´s just as knwon and just as her personal religion. Ok? Thank you. Jackiestud (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We need WP:RS. Discussion should take place on either the talk page or the WP:BLPN. I'm afraid "common knowledge" and OR doesn't cut it for wikipedia generally, and especially not in a WP:BLP. Have you read the WP:RS and WP:BLP pages? Verbal   chat  09:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Example: Have a look at the Johnny Cash article for an example of RS supporting spiritual claims. He always wore black. That article isn't a BLP, as he has died, so the standards are slightly lower - but that article is still hugely superior to the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article.  Verbal   chat  09:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you understand portuguese? How can you say ths links ar enot reliable??!! Most of the content form Musicabrasileira come from Revista Veja, Brasil´s largets and most truatsed new weekly magazine!!!!! You ain´t got a clue of wat you are saying!! Jackiestud (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Telepathy and war
Yes it's true! You are being accused of vandalism at this DRV, and may want to take a look. pablo hablo. 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This guy is getting very disruptive. I noticed he was active earlier today and thought about reply to his Editing Assitance req, but decided to go swimming instead! Verbal   chat  08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being being aggressive and disruptive
I feel your campaigns to delete well referenced, informative and neutrally written content disruptive. I also find your reversions to versions that contain almost no content disruptive. I find your edit war messages on my user page provocative and aggressive. I have filed an alert here on the suggestion of another user. Frei Hans (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Avathaar/JWSchmidt
Hi V, please don't engage JWSchmidt in any way -- there is nothing to be gained from doing so, and it only encourages further bafflement and non-sequiturs. I certainly wouldn't say that DFTT applies but you should consider the wisdom in WP:SHUN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I already disengaged at Avathaar's talk. If he wants to continue that's up to him, and I'm not going to respond to his posts at BLP any more. Unless someone actually introduces something worth discussing. So I'll not be commenting there any more... Verbal   chat  17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei Hans
I have requested comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in this dispute to some extent, I would appreciate it if you could comment. Papa November (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been accused of sockpuppeting(not by me, the other user forgot to tell you)
Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!(Sign here)  16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Give 'em enough rope... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I initially thought this guy was understandably upset after being misled by some disruptive users, but he's shown that he can't accept advice and isn't interested in the project. Of course, it is possible I edit 24hrs a day using accounts with very different interests and writing styles, and even remembering to maintain American or correct spelling depending on account, and amass a million edits. In fact it's possible I've been planning this for 5 years, starting all those accounts with huge edit totals and disparate personalities, all to ensure this article gets deleted in 2009! :) I AM (not) ORANGEMARLIN! (I wish I was that good - see my user page) Verbal   chat  17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, are you sure you are not OrangeMarlin? :)  I like him, he was fun too.  :)  Thanks Verbal, as usual -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of another user's user page
Please refrain from reverting other user's user pages, particularly without first trying to discuss why you think the page should be reverted. I noticed you reverted a user page to include "edit conflict" tags. A look at editing history shows the tags were taken out to improve readability. The time stamps on the posts showed there was no edit conflict and that the users had managed to post their comments. None of the users comment content was altered by the user who removed the tags - unless you trying to tell me that users inserted "edit conflict" tags themselves? It might help if you thought of a user page as being the space of the user who created it, and yourself as a guest there. If you feel uncomfortable about user page content, then try to discuss the content with the user instead of barging in. The same philosophy of discussing first is useful on main space pages as well, particularly where content might be in dispute. Frei Hans (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand how edit conflicts work. Please do not remove the tags again from my comments. To remove from someone else's you'll need their permission, per WP:TALK. See the note I'd already added to your talk. Also, referring to yourself in the 3rd person is a bit odd! Verbal   chat  09:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, your user page is not "yours" - see WP:USERPAGES. You can remove comments, but not change them (except in specific cases). Verbal   chat  09:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

prod2
Hey there, if you have something to add to the prod reason, you can add it into the prod2 template; for example. I've done this for you at RenDianXue(RDX). But hopefully that will help you in future :). Regards - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't realise you could do that. I was just on my way over to your page to let you know what I'd done. Cheers, Verbal   chat  08:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Simone
Pls consider the fact that all sources come form her offcial web site and major Newspaper. You reverted without consider the new sources. Jackiestud (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You undid much good editing, and restore much material against BLP policy. You must cease this behaviour and engage on the talk page or you will be blocked again. See the article talk and your own talk page. You cannot simply revert to the previous version and add a few sources that do not address all the issues. Please do not comment here about this again, use the article talk page. Verbal   chat  18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION:Legal action
I advice you not to continue. My lwayer was noticed and you damaging her image ina very srious way, damaging without knowing her work. Jackiestud (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I better take this to WP:ANI. See WP:NLT. I notified EdJohnston. Verbal   chat  18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note This user has been indef blocked for these and other threats. Verbal  chat  19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112
Don't waste your time hoping that he'll behave better when his actions are called out. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point :) I thought I was very civil, so I don't understand the wp:pot reference! Verbal   chat  19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He meant WP:POT. I've found What is a troll? describes how to best address this behavior. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood the pot/kettle thing (but I didn't know we had a WP-space page on it), I just don't think it works as I was very nice. Thanks, Verbal   chat  20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

your sig
Your current sig: w/the wrong spelling of “gray” could be achieved with:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The spelling was a copy-paste I should have noticed :) I was working on fixing this when you posted... Verbal   chat  11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Please do not remove messages I have left to another user, see Tom Butler's talk page. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not vandalise the page, and do not make personal attacks WP:NPA. Verbal chat  22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to spot a personal attack 217.44.114.146 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's no excuse. Verbal chat  23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you accuse me of personal attacks then the burden of proof is on you, until you supply said proof, please don't make accusations. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IP's edit to someone else's talk page removed here also . Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud
Given the IP's other edit, I'm assuming this is a dynamic IP. It's her, of course. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare the English. I am (reasonably I hope) eloquent and fluent, whereas this other user seems to use it as a second language, seeing as her user page states that she is from Brazil. I merely asked that my (non-abusive) comments are left untampered. This is a shared IP, so I have no objections whatsoever to you removing the edits to MBisanz's user page. But please, leave my messages be and don't accuse me of personal attacks. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a different section, and a different IP address. Nothing to do with you. I suggest you stay off of other people's talk pages if you have nothing constructive to say. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I mistook it for being directed at me (as you added to the section above for no apparent reason). And given my confusion, it was constructive as it was a defense. Thank you 217.44.114.146 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doug. Verbal chat  12:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was this edit I was thinking of: ]. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was the edit I was thinking of per WP:NPA, and the edit summaries to Tom's page are at the least WP:UNCIVIL. Hopefully (on the topic of this thread) JS will stay away or at least behave. Verbal chat  12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clearing that up. I apologise if my summaries seemed uncivil, I was just a bit annoyed at the time. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So Much Fun
Woohoo, I'm having so much fun trying to explain who the editorial board of my favorite magazine are and why they matter. Thanks for pointing me at that article. :D Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome! Verbal</b> chat  20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Noirtist wants to editwar rather than offer a decent policy argument. Shame. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies
I'm sorry for htat error and trhank you for catching it so quickly. I didnt intend to remove that comment but to merely open up a new avenue of comunicaiton for a proposed edit that i was cocerned might become controversial. Thank you for both your warning and for yfixing the problem for me Smith Jones (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove me from the list of those involved. I have given comment and no more. No other DR steps regarding any problems with my behaviour have been raised, and I'd like to see good reasons for considering me involved by an arb or clerk if I am to remain on the list. I had already noted my objections in my comment and on the talk page. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just took the list of involved parties that were there - I'm planning on discussing this with the arbitrators however to come to some agreement about who should and shouldn't be on there. I'll get back to you.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Best of luck (you'll need it!), <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed your name and one other because at the time of acceptance, your names weren't present. The other three are either directly involved in the case (Abd, William M Connolley) or self added (Eric Naval).  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning
Your warning about the three revert rule belongs on Hraph's page. Clearly he has failed to adequately address my justifications for my edits. This individual has already broken this rule by continually reverting my work without providing a reasonable explanation on the discussion page.

I draw your attention in particular to the following exchange:

Henry Bauer does not compare Sheldrake's morphic resonance with Reich's orgone energy. He simply states that Reich's backers have mistakenly cited Sheldrake in support of their own views.

Here is the passage in queston:

"Concerning rhetorical tactics, as with Velikovsky so it is with Reich. Hangers-on seek to portray brief encounters with Albert Einstein and other greats as scientific support... Connections are asserted that are farfetched, or made with extremely doubtful bits of claimed science, as with the 'independent or outright discovery of an orgone-like energetic principle... by scientists other than Reich, such as Georgio Piccardi, Dayton Miller, Halton Arp, Hannes Alfven, Harold Burr, Louis Kervran, Frank Brown, Robert Becker, Bjorn Nodernstrom, Jacques Benveniste, and Rupert Sheldrake' as well as Paul Dirac and Thelma Moss."

Bauer (2001) Science or Pseudoscience, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p 162

Clearly Bauer is comparing Sheldrake to the other scientists in the list, not to Reich.


 * This passage does not support your favoured text of "Henry Bauer noted that some of Wilhelm Reich's backers have mistakenly cited Sheldrake's ideas in support of discredited claims of orgone energies."


 * Bauer is clearly drawing parallels between the research (on "an orgone-like energetic principle") of the list of researchers (including Sheldrake) that are "other than Reich", and Reich's own (on orgone energies). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you reveal poor reading comprehension. Bauer is pointing out that Reich's supporters have used the well known pseudoscience tactic of attaching their theory to the work of legitimate scientists. Bauer goes on to note that many on this list have impeccable credentials, and this certainly includes Sheldrake. He also notes, on page 76, that accusations of pseudoscience against Sheldrake are unhelpful. The entry in the index under Sheldrake states "support for because of unfair criticism." In other words, while Bauer does not agree with Sheldrake's theory, he recognizes Sheldrake as a legitimate theorist. Bauer is well known as an "open minded skeptic," critical of the self-described "skeptics" who are really just reductionist true-believers.


 * It is you who "reveal poor reading comprehension". " Bauer is pointing out" nothing of the sort. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bauer says that Reich's supporters tried to tag onto Sheldrake and other scientists to gain credibility. No one in their right mind would disagree with that interpretation. The passage is right there for anyone to see. You appear to be incompetent. Get a grip on yourself.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't been already, I'll now report you for 3RR violations. You've been given a lot of leeway and enough warnings. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Questionable use of user warnings
Please consider your use of user warnings. Sticking such notices uncritically on the pages of established users can easily be interpreted as poor netiquette and lack of ability (or desire) to resolve grievances in a non-confrontational way.

Also, you might want to re-evaluate how much prestige you enter into a conflict over issues that most editors would find incidental, such as whether a certain project banner belongs on an article which is about to be deleted.

I know I follow you (or lead you, whatever) in some of this, but sticking a 3 revert warning on my user talk page when I have reverted you twice in the last 24 hours doesn't really make that much sense.

Hopefully we can continue to confront one another in the future using words, not banners – if such confrontations are to be the way, and not reciprocal influence and consensus-building. __meco (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the point of the warning, to stop you breaking 3RR. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

TelekinesisProf: Ok, you told me to sign my name. I have no clue how to do it, but....here is my reponce.

Look at the websites.Read their articles and tell me that I'm advertising. What am I advertising for? They arn't even mine!

Plus, their really should be incite from people who believe in telekinesis. ALL the facts on the current page promotes disbelief and skepticism towards a skill that is done by me and tons others. To us, it is so obvious that TK/PK is real. Read the articles on those websites and tell me that I'm advertising.

It's prejudice that only the "skeptical" knowledge is allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelekinesisProf (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
I've raised some issues regarding your recent behaviour and use of WP:FTN as a rallying point for contentious editing here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Artw (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been dealt with. I think my use of noticeboards is appropriate. If you'd have said here (or on FTN) that you thought a post of mine there was inappropriate, I'd have either explained or refactored my post - as I did when MastCell pointed out a less than perfectly neutral wording. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health
Hi Verbal,

I'm surprised that a three month old edit regarding AICS in the CCNH article was recently reverted. The AICS comment you restored was plain incorrect (as was discussed on the talk page). Here's the discussion copied here from the CCNH talk page. AICS was accredited by the DETC in 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010201152100/http://accis.edu/. See the little logo on the left hand corner -- that was when they were first accredited. The FAQs on the 2001 site also acknowledge the accreditation: http://web.archive.org/web/20010204021400/accis.edu/catalogue/faq.html. There was also a name change for the college from American Institute of Computer Sciences (AICS) to American College of Computer and Information Sciences (ACCIS) in 2000/2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010201152100/http://accis.edu/. The Web site was revamped in 2002 and a page describing the accreditation was added: http://web.archive.org/web/20021002081500/www.accis.edu/aboutaccis/accreditation.asp. In February 2006, ACCIS merged with American Sentinel and American Graduate School of Management and became American Sentinel University: http://web.archive.org/web/20060422154010/www.americansentinel.edu/ASU-PR021306.php. Please feel free to ask for clarification on the article talk page or on my own talk page. I won't watch this page so might miss any response here. Please don't restore the no longer correct statement. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the proof that American Sentinel Universtiy is accredited by DETC http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=170 TallMagic (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance
I am currently trying to help the editors in the topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Absurd SPI
You are the subject of a SPI. Please respond. Brangifer (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How absurd. Everybody knows Verbal is my sockpuppet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shhhh! Brangifer (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Goodness. I'm not online much right now so missed the fun. Why was I included though? I didn't see any reasoning, and don't recall this editor at all. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of warnings
Hi. I was asked to have a look at Clayton College of Natural Health and have been watching it for a few days trying to get my head round the issues. I see it as a good faith content dispute. I very strongly recommend against issuing vandalism warnings in cases such as this. Shannon Rose's edits do not seem to fall within the definition of vandalism and you weaken your case if you are seen to be making spurious or exaggerated accusations. I see that she has done the same thing to you and have already left her similar advice. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It falls within the definition of vandalism, see WP:VAND (Blanking). This user has been repeatedly warned and blocked. I very strongly suggest that Shannon Rose stops blanking material that is well sourced and pertinent. This editor has also made frivolous and clearly incorrect SPI reports, and repeatedly disrupted the project in their efforts to remove well sourced and pertinent information with no policy reason given. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC Abd case
You may want to look at my evidence section. I've updated it quite a bit and responed to both Abd and WMC on their talk pages. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further tweaked the date time stamp list and posted a stmt on my talk page and on the case PD talk page. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Null page
If you do not stop reverted my edits I will report you. Your reversions of my edits are obnoxious and violate the rules of Wikpedia. My edits are fair, referenced, and factual. Mister Hospodar (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Justify them on the talk page and you'll get consensus if that is the case. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, when challenged you need to show your edits are good for the project. WP:CONSENSUS is also relevant. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have justified my edits several times over, and on the discussion page there is agreement with my edits, as the previous text was "too ant-Null." SO I am going to revert back to my edits. Now you will have to justify your own reversions, which you have never so far done. Mister Hospodar (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, I have replied on my talk page Spritebox (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a guideline
I have a vague feeling I've seen something (perhaps a guideline) cited to the effect that the fact that one article treats its subject in a particular way (e.g. in the presentation of criticism/negative evidence) is not per se a reason for another article to treat its subject in the same way. Any idea where it is (if it indeed exists)? I'm lousy at finding policy/guidelines!

Thanks for the barnstar, BTW! Although I often feel that edits I make to other articles are more productive... Brunton (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline of which you speak sounds familiar, but I'm not sure where it is - perhaps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or similar (check the "what links here")? The barnstar is for contributing despite the whole thing being unproductive, rather than anti-productive if no one responded. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediumship
What is it that you would like clarified? The quote is perfectly reasonable, seeing as there is a statement from him that suggests it is not definite proof, so I see nothing wrong with quoting him. And note that it is the 'simplest explanation', my edit is not explicitly stating that there is proof, which I would agree would be wrong. Spritebox (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the article talk. The "simplest explanation" isn't neutral, as it fails WP:FRINGE and the WP:UNDUE section of our WP:NPOV policy. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing chapter of Bad Science
You mentioned over at Blippy that you have Bad Science (book), so I wanted to make sure that you knew that the Mathias Rath chapter missing from the hardcover edition is available online. Share and enjoy, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Schwartz
I noticed this evening you removed Schwartz's findings of The Living Universe discovery. I am going to replace that data. I would prefer you edited the material, the promotional, peacock terms, and RS, whatever these things are, to your liking rather than delete material. This data was reseached and has been cited from its source. I have identified the authors' quotes. I saw them as being memorable. These are not mine. I hate to see my digging just thrown away, because I am just a semi-educated grunt author who has little skill with words. Kazuba (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please start a discussion on the article talk page and provide 3rd party WP:RS that this is worth including. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the revert
I generally think that it is better to edit articles than leave templates up on articles indicating a direction for editing. Having a template on an article that says that "the following list is not encyclopedic" is much less satisfactory than simply removing the list, if there is consensus for doing so. Personally, I find that the list does serve a useful organizational role. However, since the consensus is obvious that it does not belong there, I have removed it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Schwartz
Thank you for your fine editing work and support. I am lost on this thing. I only know how to research and gather information. I write like this is the historical information I would like to know and pass on to Martin Gardner, James Randi and other members of the magic community. Obviously not every one else shares my delights. Kazuba (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Venetian Style Prod
To centralize discussion I have left a comment here. Thank you for your consideration. --CyclePat (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Message for you at Gary Schwartz Talk page -kazuba

September 2009
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. --GoRight (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hadn't been aware of that page. WP:DTTR though :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I only did it to him because he did it to Tillman when he was actually closer to hitting 3RR in 24 hours (Verbal missed it by like seven hours whereas Tillman missed it by several days). Since he seemed so concerned I thought I should point out the more serious offender (time-wise).  --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I-did-it-because-he-did-it sounds very schoolchildish. You must be able to aim higher William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole point of the uw-3rr template is to ensure that the other party is aware of the 3-revert rule. If they are already demonstrably aware of the rule, then templating them serves no purpose beyond, perhaps, goading them. Since Verbal is warning others of 3RR, you can be assured that he is aware of the rule. The template is not intended to be part of a tit-for-tat, you-templated-him-so-I-templated-you stratagem. MastCell Talk 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that Verbal knows that Tillman is aware of 3RR. That Verbal received what he sowed should be sufficient justification.  My post was intended to serve the exact same "purpose" as Verbal's.  Why are you defending Verbal's right to template other people while denying others the same?  Besides, what's the big deal here?  Are you and WMC so bored that you have nothing better to do than lecture me on the proper use of templates while ignoring Verbal's abuse thereof?  --GoRight (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, looking at Verbal's contributions I see that he used the exact same template with Tillman a few days earlier, . If anyone is "goading" people I think that pretty well substantiates it.  How many times is he allowed to template the same person before you consider it "goading"?  --GoRight (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the one that has come to my attention. There is nothing wrong with warning V about approaching 3RR on an article; just don't use the template. As has already been said, you're at fault here, and your justification - "but he did it first" is invalid. Just realise you've made a mistake and move on; stop digging your hole William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not at fault for anything, nor have I violated any policy or guideline. If Verbal wants to be WP:POINTy using the templates he should expect to receive as good as he gets.  --GoRight (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm not defending Verbal's use of the template, nor did I bother to look through Verbal's contribs to see how often and in what context he'd employed it. I made a general statement about the template, motivated by your specific use of it, which I noticed on my watchlist. The same principles apply to Verbal. If he's templating people who are already aware of 3RR, then he shouldn't do that. Instead of trying to ensure Verbal "reaps what he sows", why not just ask him not to repeatedly template people? Wouldn't that be more civilized? MastCell Talk 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "why not just ask him not to repeatedly template people? Wouldn't that be more civilized?" - Perhaps, but likely less effective than this conversation will have been. :-)  --GoRight (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't realised I'd already given a template to this guy, and for all I know he's a new user so hadn't been warned before. If he stops his TE then there wont be a problem. Giving someone a 3RR template because they gave someone else a 3RR template is very silly - placing the template puts both users on notice. Usually after a first template a usually post only a reminder, but this guys username didn't ring bells for warning with me. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:11, 11 September 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) 21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What personal history were you referring to
At the talk page of the Bulgarian? editor? I've warned him against accusations of vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has taken my opposition to their edits at the moon landing hoax article personally> He said the article, in order to be "neutral", had to present the moon landing as a hoax and he quotes the "proof" for this by a Russian "scientist" - I wouldn't be surprised if there is a very strong COI with this fellow. He also keeps putting a "quote" from me on his user page. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I am reading Copyrights correctly, there needs to be more attribution than they are offering - for instance, a difference link. Inclusion there at all is a bit rude, of course. So advised. You might try a WQA for that, but probably fewer than 30 people will notice. Honestly, I would just drop it and wait for WP:HERE to kick in. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from List of books by Amory Lovins
Hello Verbal, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of books by Amory Lovins has been removed. It was removed by Johnfos with the following edit summary ' (rm PROD tag per Talk) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Johnfos before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Email
Check your email. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching the watchmen
I'd just like to say hello to all 83 of you. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MastCell, if you're reading this: I'm jealous! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MastCell? Pah - he is nowhere :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not jealous of Him - it was just a cry for attention ;) Your wikipedia article is a lot less well regarded... <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. So... this means that my real-world-self is less interesting than my wiki-self? Probably true William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the articles quoting my real life identity doesn't even make 30. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States
Did you see this? --Crusio (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your note. I am very happy to enter the "D" stage of WP:BRD at this point, but please do try to address my question, as I genuinely do not see your point on lack of "contextualizing". --dab (𒁳) 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a stab at that tomorrow - I'm a bit snowed under and editing in short burst to stop me going crazy right now! I hope we can work together, and I'm glad you understood my note as I wasn't sure it made total sense! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

screwup
I seem to have removed a post of yours here, due to inept copypasta between two edit conflict windows. It wasn't intentional, do you want me to redo? (I think the point is made, however!) pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the bit about whether there is a problem with the tag is important. You can leave off the first bit if you think it's inflammatory. I'm actually verrrrry tired, so I'm going off line now and wouldn't trust myself to fix it wthout mucking something up. Cheers, and g'night <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat
 * Done and done. I've put it back how it was. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD?
Lately you said justify changes 'on' WP:BRD, which just seems to be an article about a process. I do not edit so much that I know much more than the rules by which I do not get banned as long as I do not overdo things like lack of civility, and many of these pages editors mention to me would take a lot of reading. Perhaps I should do so, but I do not even edit to the degree that I feel I should read about who to vote on. I feel Wikipedia is adequate (barely) and am not as involved as I used to be, so I still rely on admins for help, but it seeme since I started editing several years ago many of these official processes and things have been added or more emphasized (maybe I will get to more of them later but probably not so many that I would want to take on any official responsibility, so I do not know) not to mention many other Wikimedia wikis being made that are also doing this. If Wikipedia copied them and sent you email notifications things would not be so difficult, but I guess I am getting off the topic of that this is one case that I do not know what you are talking about without much more investigation or experience that maybe I do not edit enough to be involved in.--Dchmelik (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that
Hi Verbal, Thanks for bring that to my attention. I thought I was editing my user space. I just copied and pasted the entire article to my user space because I'm trying to work toward feature article status. But I'm glad someone else is watching the page. Action potential discuss contribs 11:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was a bit confused which is why I waited a bit before issuing the warning. I hope you didn't take offence. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was embarrassed if anything when I realised what I'd done inadvertently and saw that you'd already reverted. Action potential discuss contribs 11:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Reincarnation Research
No problem. I figured it was an oversight. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 11:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Outlines
Greetings, Verbal. Regarding the moves back and forth of titles to "Outline of x", I think there's a real danger of introducing wide inconsistencies by taking an article-by-article approach. Perhaps it would be better decided centrally which naming conventions to use? Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through recent renames in topics I'm involved in (maths, medicine, computing science). WP:OUTLINE recently failed to gain policy status. I think articles should be returned to original names, then consensus established in some way - but clearly the community is against the wide application of this renaming. I've advised the transhumanist to seek consensus. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm ok I see your point about restoring the original status in the meantime. Still, the outlines initiative has been a slow-burning controversy for years that has erupted a half a dozen times. The outlines that are around aren't going away anytime soon, so the failure of the proposal to become policy does not resolve the issue, and if everyone continues in this vein it will never be sorted out. Hasta luego, Skomorokh,  barbarian  08:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary Null

 * Thanks! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one for your collection
You currently appear to be getting templated quite a bit. Please stop whatever it is that you're doing. It must be bad, or people wouldn't be leaving you templates. If you continue racking up templates, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. :P MastCell Talk 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The more spurious warnings you get, the better you must be doing. When you hit a suddenly flurry it's usually a WP:REDFLAG that someone is trying to keep something quiet. I could do with a break, if only I could trust everyone else :) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Water Fluoridation
The increased activity might be due to this article being today's featured article. Given that, the usual steps taken should be okay, so it might be worth delisting on the fringe noticeboard. Best, -- B figura (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd not noticed. I still think the balance issue is relevant. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Mutual reception
Hello Verbal, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mutual reception has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary ' (+ citation -tag &c.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit 'Religion' section
The source for the above did contain the phrase "human suit", but clearly used metaphorically not literally. I was tempted to eliminate it myself, but decided it wasn't worth the argument (and entailed explanations) for an article that's highly likely to be deleted shortly anyway. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My search function must be off. Anyway, it's not the same concept. Cheers, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:27, 14 October 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, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Human disguise and human suit
Hi there, not that I object to that article being a redirect but you blanked my speedy deletion nom... I hope that won't lead to future problems. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No I don't think so, as I' not an admin and didn't review it, I think it can just be put back. Copying the content is a copyvio anyway. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Child of Midnight just reverted anyway. Wait until admin rules on the speedy before changing back to a redirect, ok? Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an admin already declined as the other page hasn't been deleted yet. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that... the holdon request may have caused a pause. Give it an hour or two and we should know for sure. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsnight link
The studio discussion is crucial for the political reference. The piece before covers the EDL press conference and the clashes and contains material that will be useful. IIRC from the start of Newsnight the feature started around 25 mins. in. Leaky Caldron  14:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The studio interview starts at 34:29 min in and ends at 37:53, with Dr Matthew Goodwin. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hertfordshire
We've had an interesting intervention from Hertfordshire this morning! It would be interesting for him to document what he disagrees with! ;)   Leaky  Caldron  11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Scunthorpe motorsports typo
It most certainly was a typo, but I hope you can see the funny side! Thanks for correcting it. Tom Green (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your use of FTN
You appear to be canvassing again. you also do not appear to be paying that much attention to the edits you've actually made. I would ask you to redact. Artw (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be incorrect, again. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some replies

 * Verbal, this is not a battle worth fighting. That's not to say that you're right or wrong, just that it's not worth fighting about. If the template is being placed as a knee-jerk without any reasoning or discussion, then it's liable to be removed. If it's placed with good intent and with some good-faith effort to justify it, then it should remain throughout the discussion. If this common-sense approach is not being followed in practice, then please let me know. MastCell Talk 05:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with MastCell. "possibly disruptive" is too toothless to be worth arguing about -- removal of any template is "possibly disruptive" -- but no indication that the 'possibility' will pan out. In any case, I see no indication that the ARS's pronouncements are (even a putative) policy or guideline having authority on non-ARS-members. Further, ARSing an article appears to be a 'last desperate hope' in any case, so I see little point in attempting to police how absurdly far the desperation can extend. If they want to template articles that are WP:SNOW deletes (or even WP:SNOW keeps for that matter), it does us no real harm, and just makes them look silly. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Would you mind much explaining why you deleted my comments to you on this about about your comments to me? I don't understand? Abdul Faisel (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted because I read them, and you should put your comments on the article talk. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your revert
This revert diff seems unjustified to me. PBS posted on the talkpage and you did not reply, then reverting the edit using twinkle and stating that he requires "consensus" seems to dismiss the fact that nobody objected to these changes. If you want to discuss this change, do so, but don't just revert and gesture in the direction of the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal
Hi Verbal,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page
As a fellow admin you should be aware of the slings and arrows that any decision in a contentious area can bring and I'm disappointed that you couldn't contain the snarkiness in your comments on my talk page and show a more collegiate tone in your communication. Shame on you. Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I am not an admin but thanks for the vote of confidence. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol well I always had you down as one so the point is perhaps well made if perhaps I have been hoist on my own petard. Please assume good faith of my close too... Spartaz Humbug! 08:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Congratulations, Verbal!  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 08:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awww, am I not special enough to be invited to the secret off-wiki RfA? Seriously, though, you should tell me if ever you decide to put your hat in the ring. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand where this came from now, I left my rational on the subpage and I think verbal assumed from the comment I left on the log that I was simply relying on the discussion and had not explained my reasoning. So I think the fault for this is mine not his. And Verbal should stand for RFA, soon. Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blimey I think I'd not last ten minutes before a hundred users voted against me :) Thanks though. Maybe after a holiday.... <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do it I'm willing to be massacred in sympathy :) Hipocrite (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

False labeling of content removal -Russell Blaylock ?
On this vandalism caution tag that you applied to User:Greensburger's talk page, you stated that Greensburger improperly removed material from the Russell Blaylock article. Greensburger's change, as shown here, did no such thing. Please explain. HarryZilber (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The explanation is simple: this is the actual diff here. I had nothing to do with the diff you present above. Please check again. It was that removed sourced info, Greesburger added unsourced info. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

81.154.10.44
I agree with you that this IP is a sock of someone, especially as its third edit was to comment in an RfA. Have you tried a request at Sockpuppet investigations? If not, you should as I will endorse such a request. In the meantime I have started Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the template
From the troubles template on the bnp talkpage All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume

It clearly says, one revert per day and clearly says all editors. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems Elonka told me wrong, and it's also clear that the BNP article shouldn't be covered by the troubles case. Also, please try to be polite. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

File:EE Berkeley 1968.JPG
Hi Verbal, I declined the speedy delete of File:EE Berkeley 1968.JPG because an unused fair use image has a week to find a use. I see from your new tagging that you appreciate that. There could be some kind of disagreement going on between someone who wants to use the image and someone who does not want it used, so we have to allow enough time for constructive dialog. 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changes + rebutting mischaracterization
Dear Verbal, Thanks for several of your recent round of explained changes to the Passage Meditation article, though there were some I disagreed with. For three of your five changes, I found the information in the change log adequate for understanding your concern (on advertisements, puffery, and trivia). On two of them I saw valid concerns in the text, but I also thought there was info in the text that needed to be included, so I restored it restored it in modified form. I had no disagreement with the 'advertising' deletion. The photo removal did not articulate the alleged lack of "souce." But inspecting the talk page suggested that perhaps your concern pertained to the "thought to be the first course" statement in the caption. If so, you could have made this clearer. Also, by Wikipedia Editing Policies (WP:EP), if that was your concern, I think you should have tried to fix the caption, rather than deleting the picture whole. Finally, by that same policy, I think you should have tried to fix the research summary in the lead, or else flagged specific concerns, rather than just deleting it.

I disagree with your statement in the change log that this article describes "fringe research". The American Psychological Association, in whose peer-reviewed journals some of this research has appeared, would not take kindly to being called "fringe". Nor would the Association of American College Health, whose peer-reviewed journal has also published some of the research. The other cited studies also appeared in journals that are respectable and peer reviewed. And FWIW, Albert Bandura - the most highly cited living psychologist in the world - has been a collaborator and friend of some of the researchers involved on most of the studies, with one of them for almost half a century; he recently commented favorably, HERE, about their skilled use of his theories in a chapter that cited some of the same research that apppears in the Passage Meditation article. Most people wouldn't exactly call Bandura "fringe", either. Would you? Friend, if you are on a crusade to oppose pseudo-science -- which you may be, judging by some of articles you often edit (e.g., Astrology, Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy) -- and which, I agree, is an area that is filled with many spurious claims -- please recognize that you are doing an injustice if you blindly assume that the research described in the Passage Meditation article is aiming to support wild and outlandish claims. Help improve the article by all means, but please remember to do so within the bounds of Wikipedia policies with regard to explaining your edits, preserving information, and other facets of helpfulness, collaboration and civility. Finally, thank you again for those 3 edits that were adequately explained, and I believe have stimulated improvements in the article (I hope you agree). Health Researcher (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you have a rather blatant WP:COI? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat

zheng He
See my talk page, I've deleted Wu Sien and will be dealing with the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?
Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

EVP
I rolled back your removal of the "Phone calls from the dead" section. It was sourced, and seemed to be written in an NPOV tone, not giving undue weight or anything. I'd just like to see on the talk page there what the justification was, in the spirit of not losing knowledge from WP. Maybe the section could be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is not reliable per WP:RS. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I copied/pasted this onto the talk page of the article. Let's continue there, and not clutter your talk page with article discussion :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"If you continue to make accusations like this you will be blocked."

 * I didn't actually read the whole thread, but... you're an admin? And you have barnstars about peace, love and understanding on your user page? This "If you do X you will be blocked" thing is an outstanding example of everything that Wikipedians should not be. But of course my words mean nothing to you. &bull; Ling.Nut 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He will be blocked if he continues in this vein, despite my efforts to warn him and help him. I have given him lots of advice on his talk page. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This debate is unfortunately covered from tail to toe with repressive tactics that are the very opposite of the sort of open discussion that scientists are supposed to embrace. But sorry I misunderstood you for one of those block-on-sight admins... &bull; Ling.Nut 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I've been unfair in my dealings here, I've tried very hard to engage despite many accusations. I have clarified my comment at the AfD. Despite many (unfounded and gratuitous) accusations, I'm not an admin either! Best, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is about opinion
I've noticed you intejections, and wanted to point out to you, that my dispute on "Scientific Opinion" is about "Opinion". Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Leonora Piper
What's wrong with Leonora Piper? It seems a pretty good article. Rupert of the New Age (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the current article, after LL put in a lot of good work. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I find a lot of these fringe bios have devolved into semi-WP:COATRACKs. Another of the worst is Dean Radin, maybe you can help me improve it in the near future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to help and learn the ropes, if you would like. I may need soem help. The list of rules that verbal put on my talk page was more complicated than a tax return. Rupert of the New Age (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegation
There is a spi which concerns you here. pablo hablo. 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please disregard as my initial suspicion was the correct one. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to the apology and retraction of accusations and implications made in the SPI filing. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you might as well look forward to several apologies, but don't hold your breath:
 * The initial filing;
 * The accusations contained therein;
 * The failure to notify you;
 * The "ooh, how do I open an SPI" faux-casual mention at ANI.
 * As a former accused sockpuppet of yours I'm getting worried ...  pablo hablo. 20:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Passage Meditation NPOV flag
Dear Verbal, I see that there have been a lot of cuts made to the Passage Meditation article. While I think that these cuts are rather a loss - after all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it has the space to include quite a lot of material that readers will find useful, and I for one felt that all the research descriptions on the benefits of meditation were really pretty relevant - nevertheless I assume that they now mean that the article no longer suffers from NPOV. Would you be willing for me to remove that tag now? Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As per Talk page on Passage Meditation, Goethean has now removed the NPOV tagDuncanCraig1949 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock
Hi there. I hope to prove you wrong, and I suppose a good start would be here. I'm sorry for any personal attacks I made against you, WP can become a stressful place, things seem to have a way of escalating. Macromonkey (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all the best. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

problem?
If you have an issue with me or my edits, please approach me directly about it. arguments by reversion/edit summary are not an effective way to resolve a dispute. -- Ludwigs 2 22:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:TALK. Don't threaten or attack other editors, especially on article talk pages. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat


 * that was non-responsive. I certainly have the right to ask another editor to stop insulting me, and to tell him I will take him to ANI if he continues.  neither of these would be considered uncivil or threatening, and neither would be grounds for refactoring my talk page comments.


 * so, again, if you have an issue with me or my edits, please approach me directly about it. if you're not willing to communicate, then as far as I am concerned you lose the right to complain.  -- Ludwigs 2  09:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your definition of response seems faulty - it's directly between your two comments (that would be a form of communication too). There is a user talk page for talking to users directly (like you are using here), or email. Don't sully article talk pages, thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Had you taken similar action with respect to BullRangifer's much more direct incivility, I could possibly credit you with a degree of dispassionate interest in the matter. but you didn't, so I can't.  so, again, if you have a personal issue with me or my edits, please approach me directly about it. do not continue to revert my edits using only edit summaries.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw no problem with the comment that yours directly followed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement request
Verbal,

please note that I have filed an arbitration enforcement request against you for Disruptive editing under the Homeopathy ArbCom ruling. you can view the request here. -- Ludwigs 2 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: discretionary sanctions (Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/.

This warning relates to the current WP:AE thread at.  Sandstein  06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding
Your removal of the tag violates WP:NPOVD. The tag merely indicates the existence of a dispute, and there plainly exists a dispute. Please self-revert. THF (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your repeated placing of the tag constitutes disruption, WP:IDHT. You have taken this to several noticeboards and not got a different answer anywhere. If you continue you may be blocked or topic banned. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You say "several" noticeboards, which implies WP:MULTI. To my knowledge, I haven't taken it to any noticeboards.  Please identify which noticeboards I have taken this specific dispute to. THF (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't wikilawyer, it is also disruptive. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How can I be violating WP:IDHT when I repeatedly politely ask for pointers to where there exists earlier discussion, and no one wants to provide it to me? THF (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have brought this issue to FTN, NPOVN, and it has been discussed extensively. You were involved in many of these discussions. You do realise that "waterboarding" is torture, right, and that this is an encyclopaedia? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not bring it to FTN, and explicitly disclaimed that I was asking about Waterboarding. Nor did I bring it to NPOVN; someone else did, which is how I learned of the NPOV violation.  My opinion on waterboarding, while a matter of public record, is irrelevant: I realize that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy and a BLP policy, and I would like to see both observed.  Will you retract your false accusation on AE that I've brought this to multiple fora, or do I need to ask for sanctions? THF (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanctions? Don't be silly. You can ask, but don't be surprised if you're on the receiving end. I don't have time to play children's games. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Higher self
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Higher self. 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/Higher self. 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) 01:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreal
You're british right? Why does your most prestigous university act like a life experience degree fraud with respect to it's own graduates? Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer Oxford (and at a EU funding meeting they claimed me as their own once, which was nice). For postgraduate degrees, they're not much different to any other ( proper) uni. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since.  Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with.  Thanks.  --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

spam? unsourced?
Hi, your rationale for this edit is "rvt spam unsourced". Wrong. Give me a proper rationale or I will revert your edit. - Steve3849  15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I took a closer look. You reverted all the edits since Sept 9, 2009 as spam. Thats just too easy. My contribution to the article yesterday took a bit more work than a simple revert and it clearly does not fit your rationale. If you revert spam on an article its better to do it as it is happening, not months later when non-spam edits have since been introduced. In this case they should have been edited out. - Steve3849  16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Lastly, I took another look at your edit and I honestly do NOT see spam. tags would be more appropriate, or just the issues template if you are striving to make only easy edits. - Steve3849  16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (drive-by comment) The "spam" part is probably where you linked your own page (the Serendipitous Healing website). The "unsourced" part is probably from using the book The Celestine Prophecy: this book is a novel and it is not a reliable source. The lithomancy part looked on-topic and I have restored it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Linked my own page? I put no external links into this article. My edit was a disambiguating wiki link and number of main article tags only ...none of which you replaced. Replacing the the actual spam and not replacing my work... that's cute. Thanks for pointing out the spam. It was done with this edit on December 19, 2009 by User:Serendipity77. I'm curious, what exactly in TW alerted you to a need for a revert after my edit? Drive by? Are you referring to my tone, or your revert? I suppose it applies to both.  -  Steve3849  17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Drive by... I get it now. You are not User:Verbal. Sorry.  -  Steve3849  17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link was added by another user, sorry for not noticing. Verbal reverted the combined edits of several users. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

FRINGE advice
Found some bald Creation science or more accurately, biblical literalism masquerading as science on the Longevity myths page. I removed some ridiculous OR on worm DNA, but there's still some firmament woo without any qualifications.

This is one of those articles that really shows my cluelessness when it comes to writing. I never know whether to pick up an X-Acto knife or an axe. What's your opinion? Auntie E. (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading more of it, it looks like an axe is in order. If you don't mind, I'm going to bring it to the noticeboard for more eyes. Auntie E. (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I had a quick look and it's hard to follow. I wont have time this evening. Thanks for asking though. I'll check back if I have time later. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Indonesia
I see no adequate discussion of what I would consider adequate explanation of what is going on - please state your case at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia before touching it again - edit summaries are hardly what is going to resolve the issue - thanks SatuSuro 14:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Automated revert
Greetings - a Twinkle instance you set up reverted an edit I made to the Herbalism article, an edit I believe was legitimate. It seems it was triggered by the removal of a reference, but I also removed the off-topic content associated with the reference. I'd appreciate it if you could review the change, and either re-instate my edit or let me know why it shouldn't be re-instated. Thanks, Nickjg (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Caveat editor
Scroll to "de-indent". Thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don Friesen
Hi Verbal,

I deleted the hype on Don Friesen's page and the message stating the article reads like a review is still there. When will it be deleted? Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thank you much!

Malibuwoman (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has anything to do with me. You could just remove it and see if anyone objects (then replace it and discuss). Cheers, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Allopathy
Hi there, seem to be approaching a bit of an edit war tangle on this definition issue! I'm not sure whether your comment is meant to refer to my edit, or if the content has got a bit muddled with a few reverts.

I'd welcome your contribution on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.152.192 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened with the RFC on Outlines?
I just came across this edit which is a copy and paste of the original article. Now my understanding was that the outlines were not to take the information from other articles and do a copy and paste like this. So what's happening if you know? Should this be reverted? I think it should be so I think I'll go do that now. Is there a conversation about all of this still going on that you are aware of? Thanks in advance Verbal, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, I just reverted it here. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion also at User talk:Quiddity, which you might like to look at. Have a good weekend. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to bring to your attention my comments here. I think the RFC has to seriously address this kind of copy and pasting that is going on.  Would love your comments there about this, thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Objections_by_OpenFuture
Hi Verbal, please do detail your concerns further. Unomi (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your revert at Placebo
... reveals a battle mentality that is not acceptable. Please stop blindly supporting BullRangifer when he degrades article quality by pushing his eccentric POVs. Hans Adler 13:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify: The eccentricity in this case is the idea that homeopathy is sufficiently relevant to placebos to put it in the second sentence. The POV that placebo use is unethical is of course a mainstream POV, but pushing it eccessively is also wrong. Hans Adler 13:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User page semi-protected
I just semi-protected your user page indefinitely due to vandalism. Just let me or someone else know if you would prefer to have it unprotected. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I semi-protected this page, you should probably also create and monitor a User talk:Verbal/Open talk or something along those lines in case legitimate non-autoconfirmed users want to talk with you. I should have thought to mention this the other day - sorry. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arthur Firstenberg
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Arthur Firstenberg. 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/Arthur Firstenberg. 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, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Outlines 2
Hi. If you have some time, I'd really appreciate some specific feedback on these threads: Also, are there other editors we should contact/nudge to give feedback at this time, or for these threads?
 * At User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft: Are there any specific possibilities that haven't been mentioned? - [I'm not looking to gauge the support for each idea (Stefan and TT didn't respond in the format I was hoping for), but instead I'm trying to figure out precisely what the options are.]
 * At User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft: Do you have any additional suggestions for scope-restriction criteria?

Any other input would be wonderful. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, 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. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Spurious tag
The American Journal of Psychiatry, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease are obviously not "fringe". I am removing your tag. Mitsube (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Source begging
Hola Verbal,

I beg that you put the source for this statement in this section. I BEG!!!!

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it's referenced in "Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All", by Rose Shapiro, and probably "Trick or treatment" too. I haven't got a copy where I am now though so can't look up her sources. The medical historians say, if I remember correctly, that TCM was invented during the communist revolution for political reasons to do with lack of modern doctors. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read one, the other is on my reading list. Google books has a pretty good searcheable preview of TorT, if you ever feel like digging then you could try there (I will to if/when I get around to it).
 * Ever read the blog sciencebasedmedicine.org? Seems like a site you'd like.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Communists "invented" TCM?
Excuse, I hope I am not intruding. TCM is being practised in Chinese communities all over the world. I lived in an area where there are at least 5 TCM herbal shops within 5 minute walking distance...this has been so for at least 40 years...and some always have a TCM doctor, and this is in Singapore. And older folks always resort to TCM when Western medicine fails or is not available, or when they want to avoid adverse effects of Western drugs. Who on earth for heaven's sake could possibly believe that Communists "invented" TCM? 220.255.115.188 (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You know china is pretty big, right? There was no one, unified, "TCM" until the communist era. Before that there was folk medicine, but highly local. The Westernised TCM with it's standard "theories", meredian points, qi, etc is a modern invention. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Verbal

The way Jclemens is reacting and behaving is very uncharacteristic, how about you ease back a bit and give them space to think this through and self-correct without adding to the hysteria at ANI? Your recent posts there have added fuel to the fire and is not in anyone's best interest. Sure the rollback will be reversed and DRV will reverse any keep closes and relist if the discussions have been tainted by this event but this trully isn't the way that Jclemens usually behaves and we owe it to an experienced editor not to let the ANI spiral completely out of control. Spartaz Humbug! 08:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My responses can be blunt sometimes. I think your response to Spartaz's request above was impressive (contrary to what I thought of the proposal and its timing). I too hope that Jclemens will come to understand why his conduct was an issue and refrain from doing the same again in the future (without additional measures), but as always, it's a matter of wait-and-see. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's been a weird few days generally and I'm more than aware that people at ANI can run away with the wrong end of the wrong stick, but not always. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to record my own appreciation for your response to my request. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. You say it is out of character and I have no reason to doubt you. Having reviewed some of his contribution history, it doesn't seem to be an isolated incident. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI Notice
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Enric Naval. I'm leaving this notice as it appears the original filer did not know to do so. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for performing a heck of a lot of actual edits in lieu of vandalizing, or generally not being a loser. If you would like to be not-unblocked, you may not simply sit around and whine ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I demand an immediate ununblock! How dare you! Love and kisses, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion
You were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion--Nutriveg (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith
Whilst I still believe that I am right, I have decided to trust your word on policy as a more experienced editor. Another seems to have provided evidence anyway, yet I am stepping back. I apologise for any hassle caused, and thank you, this experience has helped me learn more about Wikipedia. Happy editing Valyard (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
"Consensus" is not an excuse for edit warring. Quit re-adding the notability tag before you get blocked -- and remember, a technical WP:3RR violation is not necessary for an edit warring block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to improve the article, while artw is more interested in removing a valid tag than add sources that show WP:NOTE. I await the sources. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't think I'm being snide, and thanks for taking an interest in the article. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept that you are working on improving the article, but that's still not a reason to edit war, mmkay?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't give people 3RR warnings when they've only edited once (4 edits in quick succession = 1 edit for revert-counting purposes).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we both got mixed up, as a result of my mistake. The warning was for Aspartame controversy and Aspartame, but the tag wouldn't let me put both in. I probably put the wrong one in the headline tag, but editwarring across articles is also not permitted. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see it now -- you probably should have left Aspartame out altogether, since that was only one edit, and it just confused the issue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was confused, too many tags and mathematica turning my mac into a dog. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean a dogcow? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't forget 1RR.
Please don’t forget that per GeorgeWilliamHerbert’s comment at AN/I, the talk page FAQ for race and intelligence is under 1RR also. You’ve already reverted it once, by blanking the content from the mediation that Ludwigs2 added in April; your edit essentially reverts the FAQ back eleven months. I’ve also reverted the article once by undoing this change, so neither of us can revert it again in the next day without violating the 1-revert restriction. If you think blanking this portion of the FAQ is necessary, you’ll need to discuss it on the article talk page or the arbitration workshop page and seek consensus for this change there, rather than just reverting it again. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an edit, not a revert. Please stop wikilawyering, you're not very good at it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Any more objections to D-Wave Systems addition?
The has been verified, so is there anything else you'd like changed before an addition is made? The current proposed text to be added in a Technology Description section reads as:


 * As of June 2010, it has been published that a D-Wave processor comprises a programmable superconducting integrated circuit with up to 128 pair-wise coupled superconducting flux qubits  . The processor is designed to implement a special-purpose adiabatic quantum optimization algorithm  as opposed to being operated as a universal gate-model quantum computer.

As a caption for the photo, would the file description on its page now suffice? Please let me know what you think. Ndickson (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks a lot better now, although I'd remove the bold ;) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * lol, yeah, it'd be pretty confusing to have random sentences made bold in the middle of articles. Thanks for the help editing! :) Ndickson (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Teachings entry
What is your objection to the addition of some additional Michael links on the Michael Teachings page? The site I linked to is from one of the longest term, most well established Michael channels. This is the first time I have added anything, so I don't know what you mean by "as I have already asked". The very nature of the teachings does not lend itself to a dogmatic, authoritarian approach to sharing information.

SageScholar (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)SageScholar


 * Please justify the links on the article talk page Talk:The Michael Teachings with reference to WP:EL as they will likely be removed. Again. Note that the automatic bot also doesn't like them. Neither do I. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert?
Why? No edit summery and no sign of you in talk? Can you explain why you reverted out what was a considerably good change please mark nutley (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit made the lead worse. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

About WBU topic ban proposal
I've suggested a wording for the topic ban proposal - your input would be appreciated on that issue. I've also sent a note to the proposer. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Greetings, I just asked a quick Q on ANI to make sure we are all cool about how thread report titles are edited by other users. It was prompted by your edit to one of the titles there. I just wanted to make sure you understood that I have no strong feelings myself, and have zero problem with your change - it is just that your edit prompted the question and I mentioned your username as a result. Cheers S.G.(GH) ping! 21:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

wrong location
Hi. I am pleased you were on the wrong page, I was mesmerized by your post. hehe, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find the right page now. I'm going to bed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah bless, sweet dreams to you. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, EDL
<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions - reversion of my deletion
Hi Verbal,

You reverted my deletion of the "Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children" point in this list. One single contradictory paper is not enough evidence to label this a misconception. I would imagine that you understand that in most fields of health and medicine you can find papers saying mostly anything if you look hard enough. Probably there are still papers being published showing that smoking doesn't have any serious health effects - there certainly were papers being published in the 50's stating such a 'fact'.

I am removing this point again from the list. I would appreciate if you could respond to my comment above before looking to revert my edit again.

Oska (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take it to the article talk page before you remove it again. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing an edit in WP:WQA
Just a quick note to let you know I uncollapsed a comment left by another editor in response to one of your comments; granted it wasn't exactly on-topic, but it doesn't need to be collapsed, and in particular given that it was a criticism of yourself, perhaps you should have let another editor or admin collapse it if they felt that was appropriate, as otherwise it simply seems like you're dismissing something you don't want to hear. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was off topic and a personal attack. Please remove it or re-collapse it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... you're really starting to throw "personal attack" around too much. Could you explain what you felt was a personal attack? Looked like a piece of advice to me. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant bad faith comment that is off topic. Please remove it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps slightly askew of WP:AGF, but in any case I'm involved with the thread also so given that it's not exactly urgent or getting in the way of the discussion I would probably leave a comment asking for an uninvolved editor to remove it, or just ask Doc to move the comment somewhere more appropriate; I don't think it'd be any more appropriate for me to hide it than for you to do so, given my involvement in the Malleus thread to which he was referring. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's a continuation of the closed Malleus thread. I'm surprised by all the heat that has caused, as I've never been involved with any of the editors and have given my honestly held good faith opinion. I have split it as a subsection, I hope you don't mind that. From reading through the active cases though I'm not sure that WQA has outlived it's usefulness. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the comment should just be moved to your talk page. Again I think an admin or at least uninvolved editor should be the one to do that, though. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He did actually put it or something similar on my talk page, and I removed it after reading. He seems not to like me, though I've never to my knowledge interacted with him. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have, either. In any case I disagreed with your POV on the Malleus thread but I usually see your name around WP:ANI associated with useful comments so keep up the good work. I didn't really look in detail at the comment Doc left since as you said it was irrelevant to the thread, but probably the best approach here if you don't feel it is appropriate or constructive, is to simply ignore it. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:54, 5 July 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, 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) 16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Storm Front (disambiguation)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Storm Front (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tassedethe (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Storm in a teacup I calls it! But you might like to comment at Talk:Stormfront. &mdash; RHaworth 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

CRU
If you wanted to help then discussing why you beleived one word should be changed or left alone on the talkpage would have been the way to go at this stage - rather than starting an edit war on a 1RR article. Wealths Wealth changed one word, WMC blind reverted with no edit summary. This isn't a direct quote, it is a manner of interpretation of prose. I encourage you to selfrevert and mention your issue on the talkpage. Weakopedia (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave my reasoning. You reverted a good edit. Please discuss on the talk page. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Socking
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt's edits to Fringe theory and Pseudohistory
You got any suggestions? All this has been gone over time and again at several noticeboards and talk pages and it's just wasting time and energy. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he believes you're serious. Either that or he's determined to go out in a blaze of glory. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Use the talkpage
Please whatever happens use the talkpage even if Mark removes the tag again. Polargeo (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion on the talk page. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That discussion is stale and indeed seems to go against your version. I have no preference but you should not have reverted Mark. Polargeo (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not true, I was perfectly within my the norms here to revert Mark. The concerns had not been addressed, the discussion going stale is no reason to remove the tag. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Three users gave reasons for the tag's removal. One user defended it. No argument came out on top. The discussion was stale because it got nowhere and it was over three months ago. Polargeo (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The one that "defended" it was right. And your point is? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. I view that discussion as no consensus. And please don't tell me GoRight is banned because he wasn't at the time and so opinions of his are perfectly valid (if they were not acceptable they would have been removed). Polargeo (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in GoRight. The tag stays as the policy based concerns are still there. We don't go on voting, but policy based reasoning. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an admin who passed partly because of my AfD experience I don't need telling that we don't go on voting. I looked at the reasoning for the tag and judged no consensus so please discuss rather than revert. Polargeo (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you know no consensus doesn't mean delete. Especially when there are valid policy based concerns that have not been addressed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You maintain that valid policy reasons haven't been addressed so address this. This is not AfD and you are stretching my analogy so no consensus more than three months ago does not mean a thing in this instance. It certainly does not mean straight revert without discussion Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, which is why MN shouldn't have removed the tag the second time. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor
I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor. Snotty Wong  confess 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

white flag discussion
Dear Verbal, I accept my faults. Let others faults be with them. I am not a student or staff or owner of the institution. But I know about it since long as I edit wiki for a long time. I am not much expert but simply can not understand why an ordinary fact can be harmful for an article. I simply could not tolerate multiple revert of my edit on this issue. Again I am sorry for that. But this article is bearing an essence of two party war since long and I am a victim in that war. This needs to stop. We need to come to a consensus. We must remember that we are for wiki and we are not in support of or against anyone or any organization. Pls help me adjust this situation.Shoovrow (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a third party RS that says something about it, and then we can discuss adding it. Until then, it goes against the policies and guidelines I pointed you too and is misleading. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, as I'm confused, is this a 3rd party RS - http://www.spainuscc.org/ViewSecureDocument.asp?MediaLibraryID=1867 US Chamber of Commerce validation of BIU INC Seal ???Shoovrow (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's a primary source. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ThanksShoovrow (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Outlines
Hi, I'm sorry I haven't kept up with this at all. The RFC seems like it has been stalled forever that I got bored with it all to be honest. I just ran across this and found the closing enlightening. Is there any other difs you can supply me to help me catch up on how the community feels about the outline project? I'd appreciate any help you can give me to get me up to speed on this controversy. I hope all is well, take care, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  22:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN
I don't think it was your intention, but you !voted twice in regard to my request for closure on Delta/BC's bot request. The thread's been closed now but you might want to strike one of them out. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

rvv
Thank you for that. When am I going to get an exciting new vandal? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for a 3RR violation on English Defense League, followed by disruptive editing directed at the admin who previously blocked, but reversed himself. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please
Hi verbal, I know you are opposed to OOK, but the hatnotes you put in the navboxes looked awfull, if that is not 'disrupting WP to make a point' I don't know what is. I know your style is confrontational, but you refuse to get constructively involved with forming the RFc to resolve the whole matter, I mean constructively, not just rebuking every attampt to clarify the situation with 'OOK should not exist' type statements. Until the matter is resolved please think twice before making edits highly visible to readers. If you put as much time into building the rfc as you do baiting TT we would have it done and dusted by now! Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  12:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is little in your summary that is accurate I'm afraid. I've put more time into imrpoving the RfC and improving the outlines than TT, my style is not confrontational, I'm not being disruptive to make a point, .... <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

EDL
Hi Verbal. It looks like you are the only opposer at Requests_for_mediation/English_Defence_League, so I have come to give you the customary "what's wrong with you why don't you want to be like everyone else you spoilsport" treatment.

I think mediation would not be a waste of time because: (1) some editors lack focus, IMO, in terms of expressing what there concerns are and mediation could bring that focus; (2) there are things you can be open about in mediation that you can't on a talkpage. I also don't think there is a great deal to mediate over, in spite of the all-encompasing nature of the stated "issues to be mediated", so I don't think we will be dragged into a black hole or anything.

I suppose you are probably already aware that you entitled to consent without then participating fully, but thought a reminder about this wouldn't hurt.

It's up to you, of course. --FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My consent is conditional - personally I think that there is a better case for an ANI report on NPA violation and disruptive editing against Off2RioRob and Amyth.  If mediation can draw that out and resolve it fine, but there has to be some clear statement about a change of behaviour.-- Snowded  TALK  16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this mediation is pointless, but per below knock yourselves out. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Restore valid tag per unresolved talk page discussion
I don't know what your issue is with the template, there is no value to it and quite a strong support that it is valueless on the talkpage, please make your case on the talkpage as multiple editors see no value to it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I, too, would like to know which factual accuracy dispute you believe remains unresolved with The Gore Effect. There's no WP:POINT in leaving the tag there unless the article contains significant factual errors. Maghnus (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamison Twins
Hi Verbal, I have a few questions on somethings. I'm still pretty new here at Wikipedia and see you have a lot of experience and a new child. That is an experience in it self. 'First' I would like to know how you made the indentions goto 2. then to 2.1? I can't figure that out. 'Second' is why did you remove the ==Separated at Earth== The Psychic Twins first book 'Separated at Earth'(Booklocker Inc 2007) is the story their personal and professional lives. I have done this with other articles, is this not a correct standard. See Nick Brandt's page. 'Third'Can you tell me where I should put references to the films and shows that the twins have appeared in. It has taken me a lot of time to find them, but not sure where to put them. Under external or references. I really want to change the article so that it is about their lives, not just that they are psychics. I also have their book that I have been using for some references. Thank you Verbal, let me know what you think. Thisandthem (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Verbal, Hope to hear from you soon. Can I add the ==Separated at Earth== back in, please let me know? Kids grow up so quickly and you never stop worrying about them. My oldest is a Marine in Afghanistan as I write today.Thisandthem (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Argggghhhh
Thanks for the rv of M4th. But as for - argh! Please see the extensive discussion on the talk page of (pretty well) this very point: this is the criteria for inclusion in the article. it isn't the defn of a scientist (thank goodness, since there isn't one) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection.
Please refer to the AN/I thread. So far you've yet to produce any concrete evidence that it wasn't used in the case, so as it stands, the page stays protected for now. Cheers, · Andonic  Contact 11:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, please produce any evidence it was used or ask the clerks or the arbs. It was never used, was always a draft, and would not have been allowed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, will ask later today; remind me tomorrow if I haven't yet? · Andonic  Contact 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask whom, Andonic? ArbComm clerks sometimes request editors to shorten evidence, and may shorten it for them if editors don't themselves. My evidence section was accepted, i.e., not truncated by any clerk, and my evidence included everything that was linked from the page. That is routine when it is necessary to introduce evidence longer than would fit in the page limits. This most definitely was "allowed," and this page was just one of many, as you have seen. If I had linked to a page with personal attacks, I could have been sanctioned even during the case for that, i.e., I was responsible for what I wrote and linked to.


 * Verbal is demanding some kind of standard that it was "used." Used by whom? I used this page to defend against evidence presented by Verbal! ArbComm does not have a process for showing the "use" of evidence. Editors present evidence, and arbitrators review it, but they don't necessarily tell us what they looked at. All the evidence presented by all editors is the record of evidence in the case, there is no precedent for going back and removing evidence that wasn't "used." From precedent, the procedure for Verbal would be MfD, but precedent is strong here that such files are not deleted, and if it were, I'd be requesting ArbComm review of that action. This file is the only blanked one of many user page files presented, AFAIK, which was done promptly upon Verbal's request. A more detailed notice on the page became necessary from all the attempts to speedy delete, causing the unblanked page to be hidden deeply in history, where a user might not easily find it. I'm sorry, Andonic, to see this cause you trouble, and I really don't understand why Verbal is making such a fuss. I've asked him, if anything is incorrect on that page, to let me know and I could do something about it. Even if it's correct, I might be able to help. But he'd have to point to the problem! --Abd (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd: I haven't been active in a little over two years, and I was never involved in any ArbCom cases, so in this case I would feel more comfortable checking with someone with more experience in the field, given Verbal's continued concerns. If, truly, you are in the right, then you have nothing to worry about. Verbal: I won't be around for much of today, but I'll make sure to have an answer for you by this evening. Cheers, · Andonic  Contact 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

· Andonic  Contact 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you link me to what brought you to that conclusion? · Andonic  Contact 02:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect
Hi, could you stop converting Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect to a redirect, as you did here, here, here, here, here, here, and here? As you can see from the edit history and the talk page, your edit is opposed by users User:Johnfos, User:Mitsube, and User:Sunray, as well as myself. I appreciate that you feel that the subject of the article is not notable. However, there is no consensus on the talk page to convert the article to a redirect. If you would like to nominate the article for deletion, you are free to do so, as you undoubtedly know. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice
You are mentioned here:. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:57, 4 September 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, 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) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice
You are mentioned in the Arb case on climate change here  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Medation
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question. I have archived the rest of the page and this page will be the main page for this mediation Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 11:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RfAr: Climate change
This is inform you that a finding of fact has been proposed about you here. Roger Davies talk 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And emailed.  Roger Davies  talk 04:57, 22 September 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, 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) 08:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're back
I'd like your comments on or I guess really  and. Thanks. I hope you are back, you are missed. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really back I'm afraid, but thanks for the note. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 21:53, 18 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) 10:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed a tag of yours
You tagged an article which was then substandard but IMHO isn't anymore; see Talk:Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake. If you disagree (and check in here now and then), then please revert! Best, JoergenB (talk) 18:04, 25 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) 11:57, 17 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) 09:57, 1 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) 20:15, 29 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) 15:49, 27 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) 00:20, 26 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) 12:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)