User talk:Verbal/Old01

You have been reported
Here. Mitsube (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Attempted tendentious speedy deletion of an ArbComm evidence page.
. Repeatedly attempting to speedy-delete a page used as ArbComm evidence (it was response before RfAr to your evidence in that case) is disruptive. You've tried this with speedy 1, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abd/Response_to_Verbal&diff=347170542&oldid=347166009 MfD? not actually filed, just wasted time], and now this one. Don't try this again. If there is something wrong on that page, describe it on the attached Talk page, notify me, and I'll look at it. I could restore the page, modify it, and reblank. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Outlines 3
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw the message I left here in April, now archived at User talk:Verbal/Archive 3. It would still be much appreciated if you had any specific feedback on those 2 questions.

On a separate note: I do strongly agree with you that those copied introductions (and EL sections) are a bad idea, and I agree that they should be removed. However they're not strictly "copyvios" in the usual sense, so I was wondering if in the future you could use a slightly more nuanced edit summary than just "rm copyvio" when removing them? Perhaps something like "rm unnecessary intro copy" would get the same point across, but without the badfaith connotations that just writing "rm copyvio" has. (Minnecologies and others have put quite a few hours into appropriately noting the copying, per the GFDL requirements). Thanks.

On a second separate note: Could we hold off on any further page-moves until the discussion gets going again? I have no preference for any of the old or proposed names (list of topics, list of basic topics, topical outline, outline, etc), but it would be good if the whole set was at least somewhat consistent, or at the least not being potentially-contentiously moved around still further. (For example: the original title was Economics basic topics in 2001, then it was moved to List of basic economical topics in 2005, then to List of basic economics topics in 2006, then to Topic outline of economics in 2008, and then to Outline of economics in March 2009. You moved it to List of economics related articles today.)

Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Unwelcome comment removed. Verbal chat


 * Any outline/list page should stay exactly where they are unless a discussion is first had on the talk page or a broader RFC is concluded. Thank you, NW ( Talk ) 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this apply to all list articles and all editors? Can you please show the consensus for this action? This must apply to the creation of outlines and lists too? Verbal chat  16:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, in an area where edits are going to be controversial no matter what, WP:BOLD ought to be set aside while a broader consensus is developed. Otherwise, it simply encourages edit warring. Apparently, events moved ahead while I was not around, so this is just advice to keep in mind for the future. NW ( Talk ) 03:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
The page moves you have engaged in are entirely unacceptable. The question of articles named "Outline of..." is the subject of a peninding RfC and moves should not be made pending the community having resolved this issue. You were well aware that moving pages away from such titles would cause controversy and be disruptive. This is hardly a new matter, and I stand by the warning I gave towards the end of last year : "it is now clear that the moving of "List of ..." articles to "Outline of ..." and vice versa now constitutes a move war (notwithstanding that many articles are involved and that some of these may not yet have been moved)". Please refrain from any further such page moves until a consensus has been established in respect of "Outlines of..." articles. WJBscribe (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand this block. As best I can tell, Verbal has not edited for 6 days now, so I can't see how this block prevents any sort of active disruption. Am I missing something? MastCell Talk 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I echo MastCell's concerns. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Me three! As I recall, when this whole mess started a long time ago, it was User:The Transhumanist who was the one displaying ownership on this matter and trying to force this on Wikipedia. I hope that any attempts by Verbal to revert TT's ownership haven't been counted as edit warring rather than restoring the status quo. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Me four. In my thread-starting post above, where I discussed page moves, I specifically avoided mentioning the agreement to not move any further pages from before, in an effort to not escalate matters. We're trying to have a rational discourse at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, and punitive blocks do not help. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Me five, or possibly six.  pablo hablo. 07:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I looked at Verbal's contributions and he hasn't been online here since the 22nd of this month. I too have to disagree with this block as being wrong.  Please unblock with a notation of why. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I also find it strange that The Transhumanist has undone my policy (and hence consensus) supported edits, and has not been blocked - without any attempt and discussion, restoring his contested renames. I don not think he should be, but his edits should be reversed and he should be warned not to edit war. Verbal chat  16:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC) See below Verbal chat  21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He was blocked at the same time, and warned at User talk:The Transhumanist. Rightfully so! (Possibly that was why WJBscribe deemed it necessary to block you? He saw that TT had to be blocked, and was trying to be even-handed? That doesn't justify the block here, but it might rationalize it..).
 * Hopefully we can quickly put this ugly situation in the past, and get back to slow intelligent discussions about "basic topic lists/outlines" in general. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I strike the above, written when I first learned of the block. Apologies for that. With this new layout I didn't see he'd been blocked. Verbal chat  21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that justice prevailed. Even-handed blocking is often unjust and reflects that the blocker doesn't understand the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arrgh...I did ask you nicely to not prove me wrong. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I filled a CSD, it was refused, and next time I will go to MfD or whatever. No big deal. Nothing interesting has happened. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll likely be busy for a few days, presentation coming up, so I'll probably not do MfD/AC/whatever, if I so decide, until Wed at earliest. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your latest modification in MMR controversy page
Dear Sir, I am not an experienced wikipedian , nor a native english speaker : OK. Still, I do not understand why you directly choose to revert my latests edits ! Couldn't you write a message in the discussion page, if something was not clear ? Couldn't you ameliorate the parts that didn't sound clear to you instead of reverting ? Thanks for answering .Trente7cinq (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Verbal on that ... comma's in the wrong places, information was pluralized ... it's clear that English is not your first language. It would be better for you to discuss the changes on the talkpage of the article, and clarify the grammar for inclusion.  I'm not trying to be insulting here, merely of assistance. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to cause offence, and didn't realise you're new. Please post your addition to the article talk page and ask for it to be reviewed and reworded there. I left my explanation in the edit summary. The content and it's sourcing, and whether it is a good addition, will also be discussed. Thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hatting an inappropriate talk page thread
What is your problem with that ? Anthony (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Misleading note, inappropriate cut and paste. Just link the two dicussions and ask any further contributors to move their additions. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading? Anthony (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

rv at GW?
You said "Reverted to revision 366399640 by Simplex1swrhs; these changes have been universally condemned on the talk page." - was this an error? Your revert was actually which isn't terribly exciting William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Edits to D-Wave Systems article
My apologies for not first posting about the addition of peer-reviewed sources on the talk page, but it had already been suggested there that links to peer-reviewed sources be added, so I didn't anticipate that adding such sources would be objectionable. I've now voiced further concerns there, beyond just my addition. The article contains very little information about the company and its technology, and seems to imply that there are few recent peer-reviewed papers published by the company on its technology, which is demonstrably false. I am eager to hear your thoughts on the subject at the talk page. Thanks. Ndickson (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Canadian thank you
Thanks for your civility and patience with a noobie. *presents beavertail* (the dessert kind) Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)