|
User talk:Verbal/Archive 3
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 carePlease 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)
Requesting assistanceI 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) You reverts begin to look disruptive. I may take measures to stop them. Ruslik (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Follow upGot 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 ANII have mentioned your handling of Aloemps here. Thanks for doing what you did. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Edits in Osteopathy articleYour 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)
Type O PositiveNot 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)
You may want to contributePlease see this sockpuppet investigation.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Your actions on Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicineHello, Verbal. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
LLMThat 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 SciencePlease 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)
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)
Sense About ScienceThanks 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)
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.
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)
Justify Assertion of VandalismThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Homeopathic remediesVerbal, 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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_2#Category:Homeopathic_remedies. 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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_2#Category:Homeopathic_remedies, but please stop trying to pre-empt the outcome of that process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
ANI incidentHi. 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. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Re: OrthopathyI 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 againRe [1], Verbal, do not remove the comments of other editors from Talk pages. See Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, specifically, "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section," and then the next section, Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments, 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)
I sure could use your opinion/help hereHi 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, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC) User:DeLaughterDOHi 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)
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)
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)
WP:MERDS WhiplashIf 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)
hihi, 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)
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)
EuropeHi, 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) ThanksThanks 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)
Tine_2.0Re 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)
Professionalwhy 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) 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[2]. 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)
Please consider this mediationhttp://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 agreeI 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)
Awesome-ness. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
NotableHi 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) FleischmannYour 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#Status of link in article after this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
InvitationHi, 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)
Jimbo's talk pageI 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)
ApologyHi 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)
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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamViewer. Thank you. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Bkell (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Regarding reversions[3] made on June 3 2009 to Frank Sontag {{unblock|Your reason here}} 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 TeamViewerAn 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 Wikipedia: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 discussionYou'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) You've got mail. --CyclePat (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Building consensusThe 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)
IP edit to HomoeopathyIn 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)
Removal of content from Serratiopeptidase talk pageIt 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)
hAlI'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 inout 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) gun violencewhat'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)
Science and libel lawsHey, 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)
Ref FixChange all broken f 1990 refs to <ref name="FleischmannPons_1990" /> 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)
Reworded userboxHi 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)
AIVHave you seen this? pablohablo. 14:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
ARS talkThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
QuestionCould you please respond to the question I have left a question for you at Talk:Reincarnation research#Question about removal? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Accidental revertApologies for the accidental revert here [4]. 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)
Hello!Ok, no problem we may leave the tag there!! Deal!! Jackiestud (talk) 18:56, 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)
SCIgen articleHey 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) Stars4changeI 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)
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)
Query re: linksHi 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)
Please don'tPlease 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)
User:Jackiestud and the spirituality section at Simone Bittencourt de OliveiraHere 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)
Deletion review for Telepathy and warYes it's true! You are being accused of vandalism at this DRV, and may want to take a look. pablohablo. 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop being being aggressive and disruptiveI 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/JWSchmidtHi 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 m:DFTT applies but you should consider the wisdom in WP:SHUN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei HansI 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)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa NovemberAbce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Reversion of another user's user pagePlease 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. [5]Frei Hans (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
prod2Hey there, if you have something to add to the prod reason, you can add it into the prod2 template; for example
SimonePls 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)
ATTENTION:Legal actionI 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)
Note This user has been indef blocked for these and other threats. Verbal chat 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Levine2112Don't waste your time hoping that he'll behave better when his actions are called out. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
your sigYour current sig:
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
CommentsPlease 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)
JackiestudGiven 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)
So Much FunWoohoo, 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)
My apologiesI'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) 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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate warningYour 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.
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.
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)
Questionable use of user warningsPlease 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)
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/II've raised some issues regarding your recent behaviour and use of WP:FTN as a rallying point for contentious editing here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:verbal_and_associates_disrupting_articles_using_wp:_tag_teaming_and_wp:canvasing_on_WP:FTN Artw (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
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 assistanceI am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) 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 SPIYou are the subject of a SPI. Please respond. Brangifer (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Use of warningsHi. 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)
WMC Abd caseYou 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. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Gary Null pageIf 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)
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) ReplyHi, I have replied on my talk page Spritebox (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Looking for a guidelineI 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)
MediumshipWhat 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)
Missing chapter of Bad ScienceYou 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 SchwartzI 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)
Regarding the revertI 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 SchwartzThank 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 ProdTo 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
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. Verbal chat 09:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 toAt the talk page of the Bulgarian? editor? I've warned him against accusations of vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from List of books by Amory LovinsHello 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) Check your email. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Watching the watchmenI'd just like to say hello to all 83 of you. Verbal chat 09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
screwupI 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!) pablohablo. 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
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 thatHi 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)
RE: Reincarnation ResearchNo problem. I figured it was an oversight. --Nealparr (talk to me) 11:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC) OutlinesGreetings, 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)
Another one for your collection
Water FluoridationThe 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, --Bfigura (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Mutual receptionHello 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' sectionThe 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 suitHi 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)
Newsnight linkThe 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)
HertfordshireWe'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 typoIt 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)
Your use of FTNYou 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)
Some replies
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)
Your revertThis 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 proposalHi 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
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)
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)
81.154.10.44I 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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? If not, you should as I will endorse such a request. In the meantime I have started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_ips.3F. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Reading the templateFrom 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)
File:EE Berkeley 1968.JPGHi 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 mischaracterizationDear 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 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) zheng HeSee my talk page, I've deleted Wu Sien and will be dealing with the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 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#Policy report for Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC) EVPI 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)
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."
The dispute is about opinionI'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 PiperWhat's wrong with Leonora Piper? It seems a pretty good article. Rupert of the New Age (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet allegationThere is a spi which concerns you here. pablohablo. 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Passage Meditation NPOV flagDear 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)
UnblockHi 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)
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. --Ludwigs2 22:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
arbitration enforcement requestVerbal, 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. --Ludwigs2 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Arbitration enforcement warning: discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)
This warning relates to the current WP:AE thread at [10]. Sandstein 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 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)
AfD nomination of Higher selfAn 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) UnrealYou'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)
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)
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. {{fact}} 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)
FRINGE adviceFound 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)
Outline of IndonesiaI 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 revertGreetings - 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[11] Scroll to "de-indent". Thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Don FriesenHi 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)
AllopathyHi 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, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) ok, I just reverted it here. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
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. [12] Hans Adler 13:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
User page semi-protectedI 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)
AfD nomination of Arthur FirstenbergAn 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 2Hi. 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? Any other input would be wonderful. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticismAn 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism. 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 tagThe 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 beggingHola 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)
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)
ANIVerbal 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)
SPI Notice
AbortionYou were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion#More reliable references so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion#Assessing the current agreement status--Nutriveg (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Good FaithWhilst 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)
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)
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)
Any more objections to D-Wave Systems addition?The chip photo 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 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)
Michael Teachings entryWhat 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
Revert?[13] 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)
About WBU topic ban proposalI'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) 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 locationHi. 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)
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. TFOWR 15:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC) List of common misconceptions - reversion of my deletionHi 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)
Collapsing an edit in WP:WQAJust 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. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 Nettrom (talk), 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)
CRUIf 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)
SockingPlease see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_puppeteering. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Smatprt's edits to Fringe theory and PseudohistoryYou 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)
Use the talkpagePlease whatever happens use the talkpage even if Mark removes the tag again. Polargeo (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Foot odor
white flag discussionDear 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)
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, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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. N419BH 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC) rvvThank you for that. When am I going to get an exciting new vandal? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC) July 2010{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)PleaseHi 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∴V (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
EDLHi Verbal. It looks like you are the only opposer at Wikipedia: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)
Restore valid tag per unresolved talk page discussionI 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)
Jamison TwinsHi 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)
ArgggghhhhThanks for the rv of M4th. But as for [14] - 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)
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. — goethean ॐ 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC) NoticeYou are mentioned here: [16]. Minor4th 16:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 Nettrom (talk), 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) NoticeYou are mentioned in the Arb case on climate change here [17] Minor4th 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC) MedationPlease 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 changeThis is inform you that a finding of fact has been proposed about you here. Roger Davies talk 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 Nettrom (talk), 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 backI'd like your comments on 86.3.142.2 (talk · contribs) or I guess really 163.1.147.64 (talk · contribs) and 86.30.189.230 (talk · contribs). Thanks. I hope you are back, you are missed. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Added template for SuggestBotHi, 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 SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 yoursYou {{notability}} tagged an article which was then substandard but IMHO isn't anymore; see Talk:Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake#Notability note removal. 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 SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 SuggestBotSuggestBot 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)
|
