This is an archive of past discussions with User:Verbal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In an effort to improve the writing and content of the entry on Naturopathy, I made some changes last night to the subheading Naturopathic doctors. I am unclear as to why my changes were reverted. All of my changes were appropriately cited and the grammar and structure of the entry was improved, and more importantly, the content was not significantly changed.
My main reasons for changing the current entry are:
-That variations on the phrase "homeopathy ... pseudoscience ... quackery" appear no less than three times in the entry. That's just bad writing. Nonetheless, I understand the importance some attach to these words, and so left them in, while at least improving the general writing style of the entry.
-That the phrase "scientifically disproven" is impossible to validate. It is nearly impossible to fully prove a scientific theory, and likewise it is nearly impossible to fully disprove something as well. The two articles I cited contradict the statement 'scientifically disproven'. The phrase 'highly disputed' is more accurate.
-The phrase 'irreconcilable with modern science and medicine' was altered only because I was starting a new sentence and I wanted to improve grammar.
-It is not clear in regarding on what grounds the Massachusetts Medical Society objected to licensing naturopaths, and so I expanded that sentence to reflect the content of the citation given.
Please let me know why my changes were reverted - I was attempting to improve the content and style of the entry and thought I did a pretty good job with it. Kpaddock (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Note that things in the lead should be repeated in teh article, so some things must be said at least twice. I started a section about the lead edits there. I'm busy right now, but I'll look soon (probably not until tomorrow). Thanks, Verbalchat15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello again - I moved this to the talk section at the bottom of the list. Hopefully we can discuss there and come up with a version of the change I suggested that is agreeable to both of us. Admittedly, my personal point of view is in favor of naturopathic medicine, but want to make sure the criticism is also well-represented. I also want the style of the entry to be improved so that it is clear to both experts and lay people. Kpaddock (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies
Accepted, and my apologies for not notifying you about that ANI thing (I had put a note on the talk page of that darned article, but didn't think of putting it here, should have known better...) I would like to get that Perspectives thing solved. The whole brouhaha is now spilling over, with Firefly creating an article about me and Hrafn slamming that with notability tags. I'd love to AfD that (as Peter L. Hurd tried with his article), but as journal editor I pass WP:Prof, I fear. One of the problems with showing notability for scientific journals is that there is no special guideline and it is exceedingly rare that an article is written about a journal, so all notability derives from indirect measures. I'm not an absolute inclusionist about these things (I prodded African Journal of Oral Health which subsequently got deleted). I feel that the number of libraries argument of DGG is a good indicator that there is notability here, but it is difficult to show. (I just now see the note you posted on my page, seems like we're thinking along the same lines). --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
For now I honestly feel that the redirect is the best solution until notability can be reliably established. I didn't realise you were having other problems. I've had problems with FireFly in the past (he said I wasn't a "real" Christian, amongst other things) which lead to him being blocked for a while. I also respect DGG, but I'm not as inclusionist as he is either! Verbalchat14:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess that if I really think about this (without letting myself be influenced by Hrafn's incendiary comments), I can live with a redirect for now. The article on me got created by Firefly last night and was rapidly tagged by Hrafn, detagged by Firefly, and then retagged with an angry comment on the talk page by Hrafn. It's annoying, I don't need such an article and even less one with a rampaging talk page and a notability tag on it! --Crusio (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If you do not stop reverted my edits I will report you. Your reversions of my edits are obnoxious and violate the rules of Wikpedia. My edits are fair, referenced, and factual. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Why only I am requited to do this and not you or everybody else? Am I a lower category editor just because my views are different? --Лъчезар (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
My edits are sourced. You want me to beg to include my material, knowing in advance that it will be rejected because all other editors are on your side. I'm alone here and so will always be defeated. You know that in advance. My struggle here is doomed. But the truth can never be silenced and that's what you forget all the time. The truth will finally prevail, and much sooner than you expect. You probably already know why. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, I see a few problems. 1, You're wrong. Obviously and completely. That invalidates many of your arguments, but isn't a reason for leaving material out - that's not why I'm stating it here. 2, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your version of WP:THETRUTH. 3, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS are how wikipedia works. 4, The Apollo landing happened. That is a fact. 5, I agree that the truth will prevail, and I haven't forgotten that. Despite your actions, or anyone else's. You are acting against "the truth" in this instance. I think you'll probably find it easier to get on in wikipedia if you take a break from everything to do with Apollo for some time, to get experiance elsewhere. Have a look at WP:NOT. Verbalchat15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you removed the melodramatic bit about your death (martyrdom?), but I haven't got a clue what you are talking about with "much sooner than you expect. You probably already know why". Verbalchat15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed that because I'll hopefully live to see the truth prevail. About the text making you clueless, that's my challenge against you. As to the truth, your opinion, or that of 80% of mankind, is not necessarily the truth, despite that it's the "official" version (for now). --Лъчезар (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry you feel that the moon landings didn't happen, and I hope you get over it. Wikipedia is not the place to be giving health advice, so I can't help you. Verbalchat15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your care, but probably I didn't express myself correctly, so you misunderstood. I'm sorry, that's entirely my fault, of course. I don't have serious health problems, my grandparents all lived over 80, my father is over 80 and my mother-in-law is approaching 80. I meant that it's always great to see the initially "heretical" truth finally prevail. I have reasons to believe that NASA was forced by the US government to lie, and am sorry to find that science had since become a hostage for politics. But as always, politics prevails :( --Лъчезар (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't bother to follow the links that Verbal provided. They're the words above in the pretty blue colour. Move your mouse to point the little arrow on the screen at them, then push down with your index finger until you hear a little "click" sound. You'll find there's a bunch of words appear on your screen that explain why nobody cares what you, Verbal, or anyone else here "have reasons to believe". What we care about is what reliable sources have published in a form that readers can verify. The concept is known as "verifiability, not truth". LeadSongDogcome howl17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I find your tone insulting, but I'll ignore it. I had read all but the humorous essay about truth. It's highly inappropriate to joke with the truth, but it will surely get over it. The whole catch of Wikipedia is that only sources that stick to the "official" position/opinion are considered reliable. It gets some money from the ruling classes, so it has to be obedient. Hence the WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc. Real neutral point of view is impossible anyway – we're not gods and are all subjective. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You just don't understand, then. WP includes all kind of Reliable Sources, not just "official" ones. Certainly there is no US Politics filter, we include sources the USG has never heard of, from every country on Earth and any political leaning. If you have some insider information that you wish to publish, there are a vast number of places to do so. WP is not one of them, but go ahead and publish somewhere more suitable. Try to get it in a journal with a high impact rating so your work will be able to benefit from the best best of editorial support. If Phys Rev Letters, Nature or even New Scientist takes it you'll have no difficulty getting it in here. LeadSongDogcome howl19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't have an insider's information. I don't know anybody who has worked at NASA. But with some "reverse engineering", some people like Popov (with errors) and Pokrovsky (perhaps correctly?!) have managed to answer the most important questions: "What were the technical obstacles for a manned Moon landing?" and "What exactly NASA did?". This means, they "reverse-engineered" it, which is a great achievement by itself :) --Лъчезар (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Лъчезар, you are reading all of those things into photos and films. These were released by NASA. If they really contained proof that the landings did not occur then NASA would not have released them, right? Bubba73(talk), 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
NASA aren't gods either but they've made very few errors for such a huge project. Even their errors can't prove the landings impossible though (if we assume that the burden of proof isn't at NASA). A direct proof so far is in my opinion only the work of Pokrovsky and that's why it's very important that it's examined by more than the 15 people (with 2 known names so far). The fact that the journal where it's published has an impact factor of 0 doesn't diminish the meaning of his work, albeit (as I see) makes it problematic for inclusion in Wikipedia (at least for now). --Лъчезар (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The moon landings happened. We wouldn't have been having all this strange weather for the past 40 years if it wasn't for them sending all those rockets up into space.Quoting some relatives of mine. Yes, I originally hail from Appalachia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just with regards to my block of RetroS1mone, fair enough; I'm not well-versed in block lengths yet, and will bear this in mind in future. The reason I selected a long block length was because of the length of time the user was editing disruptively; my apologies if the length was a bad idea. Colds7ream (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the note. I'm glad you took my comment constructively, even though I'm no admin (and never likely to be!) One other point, I'd avoid ALL CAPS in comments - especially warnings. I'd use bold to highlight a point, or italics, rather than give the appearance of SHOUTING :) I hope you and retros1mone can move on and work together. Best, Verbalchat15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thx for your help Verbal!!
The unblocking admin said my block was unjustified also because of timing, right after I had ANI about Colds7ream bc i thought he was harassing me with Welcome template, i have 3300 edits, and putting Welcome template back after I remove, reverting my edits in articles, making false accusation about me in edit summary, approving harassing RfC about me, giving me level 4 vandalism warning when i do never vandalize. My edits are not disruptive and i do not like, Colds7ream is still making this accusation of me and no other person who is editing articles like Chronic fatigue syndrome. RetroS1monetalk17:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Everything does seem to have happened a bit too fast which is going to cause frayed tempers. I've not looked into it to much really, but if there is problem it is best to try to maintain the moral high ground and to keep things civil. All the best, Verbalchat17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for the barnstar. I don't know how anyone can spend any extended amount of time on that article/talk page. The incredible amount of word parsing/tendentiousness is remarkable. Yobol (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Libel laws
I like your libel laws logo. I am currently being attacked by the psychological community for linking the Rorschach images from Wikimedia to the Rorchach page on Wikipedia. This profession seems to be trying to real influence Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yawn. Another one? You might want to try submitting one about yourself, your relationship to other editors in this topic area seems interesting. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the other user were you. The number of editors I've now been accused of being must be close to 50 now. Verbalchat20:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the {{Incoherent}} template on the article, and the continual questions on article talk as to what the hades McKenna is babbling about, calling his quote "inane" and removing it seems entirely appropriate. What we need is coherent secondary-source analysis, NOT more of McKenna's incoherent babbling. HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I had no intention of being rude. The whole of timewave zero, as presented, is inane. Adding more incoherent quotes isn't helpful. You've been asked repeatedly to discuss on teh article talk page, justify your edits there, and to help others (like Hrafn) who are trying to address the huge problems with this article. Let's have a moratorium on primary sources and quotes while we try to address the more important secondary sources WP:RS problems. Verbalchat08:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the creator of Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots has been concerned with similar behavior. I will discuss this issue with him and other editors who maybe had these same concerns. I hope this behavior is not common, and it ceases immediately.
Second, I am concerned with how a veteran editor can make WP:N claims which, to my knowledge have no basis in current policy. I am also concerned and how you continue to remove well referenced sections in articles.
Ikip (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The first I was involved in due to people I know being involved. The second because it is tagged for rescue, and I'm a member of ARS. Don't be silly. Your concerns are noted, but really it is not I who is acting against the interests of the project. If you want the article deleted then please keep reverting my improvements, but that wouldn't be good for the project. I have no interest in the creator of the other article, and his concerns were directed at you for removing all of his OR. I have never changed my justification for deletion on the Graphical methods article, and if someone does there is no reason not to or to ignore it because it is a different reason. Verbalchat13:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, enough from me.
I remember sometime ago how an issue with another editor just blew up. I know if we both could have taken different paths, the explosion could have been avoided.
I don't really know you verbal, you don't know me. We started of on a rocky start, but I am going to try my damdest to assume good faith. I am sorry if I haven't been the model of patience.
I like your last change on the list article.
I decide to take your approach: delete it all, and then let editors add it back.
I think we almost agree on both articles, which is why I was quite surprised by your recent comments to CW (who wasn't talking about me) and FireFly (who seems to dislikes me - I'm not a real Christian or something). I'm clearly not as inclusionist as you, but there is no need for confrontation. Verbalchat13:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be best to remove the FF332 comment, if you wouldn't mind, and my reply. I'd rather not get him riled up again. Verbalchat13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Canvassing
From User:Ikip
Please stop your rather unpleasant canvassing. Without even having to look at your history I have seen you post to several pages I have watchlisted asking for contributions to an attack you have made on me. This is clearly inappropriate and disappointing. Please remove this canvassing and hopefully we can move forward from this. Re your edit summary removing my previous request, I'm not playing, and making hurtful accusations is not funny or a game. Verbalchat13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I contacted three editors, Firefly, the creator of the article for deletion, and Colonel Warden. I removed the creator earlier b/c it was a mistake. I removed the other two now. Like I said, I decided it was best to deescalate the situation. What made me decide all this is your good faith edits on the list article, keeping the references, but removing the metacritic one, making me realize, that you are an editor I can definitely work with. And maybe I was wrong. I am sorry.
Barring any new developments, I am going to unwatch the list page up for deletion, because I now trust your judgment, and to avoid any further misunderstanding, but continue to watch the AFD. Ikip (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your welcome. You mentioned in my talk page that i've violated NPOV in some editing, but which article is it and why? Would like to know more.
BTW, do you know how to get email notification of watched changes, instead of visiting "my watchlist" everyday?Chakazul (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As WLU says on your talk page, I don't think you can have changes emailed to you. There may be an RSS option, but I haven't looked. As to the NPOV warning, there are several edits, such as those highlighted o your talk page, and others where you remove sourced information that distorts the article against "NPOV". Look at your contribution history, click the diff option, and you should see why your edits were removed. Thanks, Verbalchat13:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
ANI Report
Hello, Verbal. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hi Verbal, a report relating to the Plimer issue was made at AN and I have moved it to ANI. I feel confidant you would want to be notified. EdChem (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Verbal, FYI: Tony Sidaway has removed the threads from both AN and ANI. In the meantime, Uncle G has reverted and fully protected the Ian Plimer page for a year. I recognise that Tony is trying to minimise controversy, and I'm not looking for problems, but I do wonder whether Uncle G's action should be reviewed or reversed because it may have been based on an inadequate examination of the situation. Any advice? EdChem (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Uncle G's actions are too draconian (let alone all the "wrong version" stuff, and the fact the article was improving). I'm not concerned about the removal of the threads, but a year protection? That's ridiculous. Verbalchat
I probably stuck my oar in inappropriately. Oh well. At least he left the (obfuscated) link in the text - which is why I missed it. I might add an edit request template asking for the link to be un-obfuscated later. Verbalchat13:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that that should be WP:AN/EW, as AIV is targeted at simple and obvious vandalism that does not require a complex or in-depth case history. You should make clear that you are reporting for edit warring, not just 3RR, and give diffs of warnings and discussion. I have only been following this peripherally, but I trust that you can build a case fairly readily. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I have been warned by yourself for edit warring and yet Ghmyrtle has clearly taken part in edit warring with regards to his editing of EDL wiki page. He wants to add far right to title when ref he provides (ref 2 3 and 4) clearly do not state officialy that group is far right. Please could you make this clear and message me if you have any questions. many thanks
He's adding references, you are damaging the article. What they call themselves "officially" is irrelevant. We follow the sources, and basic dictionary definitions. Verbalchat13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply to my discussion page. I have decided to consult help elsewhere but do appreciate your reply and help provided. Thanks again Johnsy88 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Leonora Piper(born Leonore Simmonds, 1857 - died 1950)- is the most famous trance medium in the history of Spiritualism. For a quarter of a century she provided the most convincing evidence for the reality of life after death or telepathy to some of the keenest, predominately male, minds in science. ref: The Spiritualists, The Passion for the Occult in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries by Ruth Brandon, Alfred A. Knopf, 1983 ref: Ghost Hunters, William James and the Search for Scientic Proof of Life After Death by Deborah Blum, The Penguin Press, 2006 ref: Studies in Spiritism by Amy Tanner, first introduction by G. Stanley Hall, page 18, Prometheus Press, 1994, orginally published by D. Appleton, 1910
This is what the materials have said for over a hundred years. How can you not know this and write or edit anything about parapsycholgy? How can you deny this? This a COLD HISTORICAL FACT. This is as true as the world is round. She was the best. Kazuba (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Well are you gonna put it back or do I have to do it again myself? Please reply. Your arguments are full of holes. Admit it. You are on unfamilar ground. Reply Kazuba (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It is puffery and trivia, never mind the errors of English. It might work better as an attributed quote, losing the trivia: "Leonora Piper is credited by some[who?] as 'the most famous trance medium in history'". The rest of it shouldn't be included. THat her article is a mess is no reason to spread it around. Verbalchat15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not finished working on her article. I have only started. First three paragraphs and a bit near the end. It will probably take me months to verify quotes by William James and articles in the paranormal journals from around 1900 and go as deep as I will dig. I will specify G. Stanley Hall and Martin Gardner but there are many others. I could say the parapsycholgy community. Kazuba (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I am curious on what basis you think the text of Scole Report is derived from the Italian Wikipedia (which is actually allowed in any case). I.E. if that text is deleted, how do you know what it said? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The article itself said so, but I deleted that as the page it linked to no longer exists. I've asked Moonriddengirl for advice. Verbalchat08:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
How dare you, sir! Outing is a capital offence on this page :) (that sounds homophobic, which is weird) I do like Sense about Science, which is apparently a front for "Living Marxist"... I dislike Scargill though, and Brown, and Cameron, and... I'm full of contradictions. Verbalchat16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Contradictions are best. Anyone who has all the answers tends to be a bit suspect from my experience. A Marxist front to support Science, wow, that is devious! --Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Where's the evidence to demand this of arbs? And your lack of faith is appalling, Verbal. If I'm lying here you can have my Eagle Scout medal. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're lying, and just think that complaining about being asked this question when you are an arb and involved in addressing this question is not a good thing, and will erode the communities trust in arbcom further. They can demand answers from the community, but the community can't ask for a little transparency in return? Comparisons to McCarthy, the HUAC or the Salem witch trials are far beyond mere hyperbole - there is no similarity. Verbalchat14:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is a similarity. Why aren't you demanding this of admins, who also have trust positions, who were in his RFA and knew of it? There could well be more than GC and Lara, but you don't seem to care about that. I simply think this standard in this situation should apply to all, not just arbs, so yes, there is a singling out here. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I have asked that the admins who knew and were heavily involved like GC and Lara have the bit removed. I do think all admins that knew should own up, and depending on their level of involvement should have appropriate action taken - perhaps by arbcom. I would have hoped that GC and Lara would acknowledge their actions were wrong, which would mitigate somewhat. Arbs are elected to a higher office than admins, so should expect a higher level of scrutiny - especially when you may be involved in the case (you're not, that's fine, I'm sure that's true). I don't see the problem in asking arbs. Dealing with all the admins seems a bigger problem, and we can deal with the ones we know about first. I don't know how many admins were involved in the RfA and how many might have known, and whether it's practical just to ask them all. It might be worth trying. But let's deal with the more immediate problems first? Also, I've added a "could" to my comment and tried to clarify it below. I didn't mean to imply you were lying, and I take arbs (and most editors!) at their words. I'm sorry if I offended you. My point was to highlight that arbs actions could be doing more to harm arbs reputation - and mine harmed my reputation too! Damn. Oh well. I think it makes sense to start with arbs, who are hearing the case. The admins should also be dealt with. Do you agree? Verbalchat14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree admins involved that were culpable need to be dealt with. There are many issues in this case and I and the committee are still considering the best course to take. Of course, no matter what we do some faction(s) will be upset. See answer on my talk page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm genuinely sorry my edit caused this, and wish I could remove it - but that would be improper. In my defence I a bad cold (not pig related I hope, evidenced by my atrocious spelling). I am truly glad that you feel something needs to be done about the admins, and you've now shot up in my estimation a lot. I hope we can put this behind us. this is my second fuck up on wikipedia in 12 hours (accidental 3RR vio) - I shoud probably stop editing until I feel better. Verbalchat15:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You have archived an active request for comment based upon your individual assessment that there was no-one else who wished to participate. I find that (i) erroneous inasmuch as the proposal was posted only for a few minutes, and (ii) participants engaged that were not present on the earlier proposal. In addition, this proposal is not the same as the earlier RfC, aothough there are similarities. In particular, it is suggested as a modification of a change made already by Rd232, and is not a standalone, and it is a much more moderately phrased proposal.
Hello Verbal, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of List of basic topics in logic - a page you tagged - because: Discussion of this one may be a bit controversial, as the target page seems to be about more than just basic topics. Please get consensus for this one on the talk page. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW(Talk)22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Verbal, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of List of basic mathematics topics - a page you tagged - because: Discussion of this one may be a bit controversial, as the target page seems to be about more than just basic topics. Please get consensus for this one on the talk page. . Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW(Talk)22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes please, I was going to leave it as a sand box and so as not to annoy you guys too much. Trying to test twinkle but it only gives user page options, and I didn't want to vandalise an article. :) Cheers, Verbalchat12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There are several editors working on this with me. We are having a discussion and we plan to fix it. Your habit of following me (or any other editor) around contra WP:STALKING and contra WP:HARASSMENT is not ever going to help wikipedia. It's ludicrous (that's why there are these policies and guidelines for you not to behave in this manner). Please stop. Thank you. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I was invited to contribute by the originator of that policy proposal, and I clearly have an interest in the guideline. Please stop thinking everyone who disagrees with you is harassing you. Verbalchat04:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A simple nudge/reminder would have sufficed. I have corrected my mistake, but feel it is in no way deserving of the personal attack here. Make any more personal attacks and you may well be blocked. Please stay civil and calm - there is no need to get excited. Verbalchat10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There was every reason for me to assume that you were taking advantage of this mistake, as the Outline of Water talkpage is covered with this fact and you've been participating in this discussion since you made the first page move. But, I'll assume good faith here and apologize for this assumption if you will be more careful in the future. -- penubag (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to assume bad faith. Since I'd several times stated it was originally an outline, isn't it more likely that the addition of the word "original" was a mistake? It would be silly as it would be obviously picked up by others, and both Hans and I have corrected our mistakes as soon as we were made aware (others haven't corrected their misrepresentations, I notice). If it hadn't already been (correctly) removed I would have removed the tag myself when I went to correct the error. Please feel free to apologise and strike your comments on Jake's talk page. Thanks, Verbalchat10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. I hope this stupid dispute can be resolved immediately. I'll say sorry again if it wasn't immediately recognized ; I realize I was in error (nevermind my edit summary on Jake's page).-- penubag (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not worried about the edit summary. Thanks for the above. There is also a comment on User talk:WJBscribe which I feel is a bit strong - perhaps you could make it a bit less personal? I realise I have complained about TT, but I feel that is justified. I do want to separate the TT issue from the outline issue, but TT has made that difficult! Nevertheless, we must try. As I've said I'd like to work with everyone to make an RfC on outlines (of limited scope), but I'm busy today and tomorrow. Best, Verbalchat10:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Verbal, I am afraid I misled you with my comment. Sorry for that. Obviously I will try to be more careful in the future. HansAdler11:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If you mean did I go out of my way to alert you then clearly not. You have popped up via your watchlist very quickly whenever changes have been made that you did not like in the past. Since others, including previous opposer Snowded agreed to the new consensus I did not think we needed your personal endorsement. If that infringes an editing guideline let me know. It's fair to say that if the consensus had not been so strong I would have waited for you - but it was stronger than the existing weak consensus so Snowded himself changed it. Leaky Caldron12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I mean did you follow dispute resolution? Where have you attempted to discuss this with me on my talk page? I've reverted your change and added two RS. Verbalchat12:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to deal with you civily at all stages. I raised the AN/I because you were ignoring consensus. If you will return to the consensus version in which "political" was removed we can easily reopen the debate. You insisted on using the consensus version last week and I agreed. I also now agree with "far right" based on the RS. I will happily return to the talk page and cancel the AN/I if you respect the new consensus until if & when a revised lead is agreed based on policy. Leaky Caldron14:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You haven't attempted to "deal" with me at all, you immediately reported me to ANI. THe ANI thread wont go anywhere, I assure you. Please return to the talk page without setting conditions and debate there. There was no need to invoke local consensus about far right, the community consensus of WP:RS and WP:NPOV etc trump local consensus. Verbalchat14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"Far right" isn't in dispute. "political" was, but then a consensus agreed to leave it out per policy. The consensus agreed a new phrase, "far right organisation". That's where we are per policy. If you insist on adding political then you are violating NPOV/RS etc. policy which was discussed when the censensus agreed to remove "political". It is clear that if you agree to allow the consensus version until you can provide verifiable material to support a further change then we can continue to discuss on the talk page. Until then any editor is entitled to return the article to consensus and that includes me. What will you do then? Discuss first or revert? Please change back to consensus and discuss - you know it makes sense. Leaky Caldron14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I would think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour. Verbalchat
Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.
Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and AN/I, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour" seems to be a true summary of wikipedia attitudes to me. Please return to the article talk page and justify your position and tagging. At the moment I don't see the consensus you claim. Most posts are about removing right wing, and ambivalent on the "political" issue - which you shouldn't take as support. As I added sources it wasn't a revert anyway, and the addition of sources changes the debate as some of the opinions were based on the lack of sources. That has been resolved. Please remove the tag, or justify it properly, and debate your opinions in the correct venue - the article talk page, not here or ANI. Verbalchat16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed this from the talk page because it it primarily concerns you:
I also enjoyed your edit summary. The amount of contributions on this talk page form certain editors might very well be the problem. This article has a small portion of the information it could have, offers little in depth analysis, is a series of claims for them and accusations against, and has 1/2 a history section.
Also, I know I am being preachy. I did it on Snowded's page as well. Another editor shouldn't be nervous about adding sourced material as another editor appears to be. The tacticts (although maybe unintentional) on the talk page have railroaded content and prevented expansion of the article. It also reads poorly.Cptnono (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have set out what is clearly the new consensus position on the talk page and have returned the article to a position agreed by several active editors. You will no doubt wish to discuss and seek to change the article, but you should do so on the talk page first. Regards. Leaky Caldron09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I genuinely appreciate you doing that. I made a series of changes last night and would welcome your review. They were cosmetic and I diff’d them to the talk page. Spylab has since made further mods. which I have not had time to check. Leaky Caldron10:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your changes seem fine, though the section title still could be better. Political will probably be replaced in good time. Not sure about all spylab's changes, but most look ok. Verbalchat13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
RE: Floydian
Floydian isn't the only user involved in edit-warring. Whether or not he's the one causing all the problems isn't what anybody should be proving here. If there's consensus against him and he's acting against it, I'll act on that; however, so far, I've seen a few names going back and forth on that article. Master of Puppets15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
and the continued abuse? Who else broke 3RR twice? He honestly seems to think that you are supportive of his general behaviour. You should at the very least make it clear that you aren't. Protecting the page seems to be a very poor solution, when blocking the principle cause would have caused less damage to the project - and a locked page is damage, whereas a blocked abusive, editwarring, editor will be a gain if they realise their actions lead to consequences. Verbalchat15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not supporting him, and I've given no indication of this (after all, I warned him with a block a day ago). Note that blocks are not meant to be punitive, but preventative. I'll act as is appropriate; I appreciate your input, though. Master of Puppets16:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Preventative of continued disruption - he has already indicated he will revert, and has continued his abuse. The only reason he cannot revert is that the page is locked, although he has still asked you to anyway. They are also supposed to be educational, and he has twice broken 3RR in very short order and still believes he is correct. He also has taken your lack of action as vindication of his actions. Which, to be quite honest, I feel that it is. You have not been at all clear. Verbalchat16:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
He knows that, if he reverts, I'll block him. I'm hoping that this stops him. If he intends to be disruptive, I'll also block him. I don't see how this is justifying his actions. Master of Puppets16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
your comments earlier...
In the following edit on the EDL talk page, which you made immediately after one of my update’s you referred to censorship and POV. Unless I am mistaken, I will naturally assume good faith and trust those remarks were not aimed at me personally. However, if they were “for my benefit”, please feel free to explain what you believe my POV is and I will more than happy to set your mind at rest.
“This isn't a correct summary, not all of those listed as support have actually supported the position that political should be removed, and neither have arguments been presented against this well sourced and clearly correct inclusion. We don't censor information to suit a minority of POV editors. Verbal chat 10:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)“
My objective remains that Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
Hi, I assume you noticed (or will soon notice) that I put proposals for changes on Talk:Passage Meditation#Proposed_Changes. Please describe any concerns about these proposed changes. No rush, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. I've not too experienced with Wikipedia processes such as WP:BRD, so I am erring on the side of redundant notification. Best regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Before I send my comments to ANI can you advise whether the opening sentence in this version, with political included and sourced, is an opportunity to work towards a consensus version? [6]. Leaky Caldron15:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I feel that including political is supported by consensus, but I am willing to compromise and improve the lead. I don't have a problem with your other edits, and think the addition of single-issue is fine (although that issue has several sub-issues!). I have no problem with further debate and discussion, though I do find Cptnono's approach quite tiring. I would rather work together on this, and I agree with you that I don't see why this is such a big deal. I want to improve the article. Maybe we should focus on expanding other sections for a while, and then updating the lead to reflect the new content? Verbalchat15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, as to the diff - I mostly like it, apart from "social movement". That's a bit strong as it might be astroturfed or whatever. Organisation would be fine there. How about you propose that new first line on the talk page. Verbalchat
(edit conflict)Snowded removed the reference to political. Are you saying you would support it using the reference I have provided? If so, put something on the talk page and I will restore it. Hopefully Snowded will then buy into it. There is still a question about whether it is acceptable as a source (Youtube issues). I have raised it at the RS NB. If you can accept the form of words along these lines I would hope the AN/I to be resolved by Cptnono.
"The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far-right, single issue movement whose political direction is being debated within the organisation.[1]"
I think Snowed probably had a problem with social movement and grass roots too, and reasonably thought I would object as well. I think the sentence is accurate, but you're right there may be sourcing issues - I didn't look at the quality of the ref, I assumed it was good. I'll look at RSN and maybe comment, and look for other refs. I'm sure I've seen this said elsewhere. Please propose this wording on the talk page while I have a think, and maybe I'll even make the change! I'd want to hear from snowed too, but I'm really pleased that we seem to be getting somewhere now. Verbalchat15:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added a link on the RSN. I think adding something about the potential for hijacking might be good, and I read a report about some Ulster paramilitaries wanting to get involved and start a NI branch, which led to similar fears. Verbalchat
Thank you, the tag won't make the wheels drop off, there are issues there so.. it is ok to have the template for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW: If you could let us know on the talk page what the issues are, it might prove illuminating. I'm not interested any more. Verbalchat20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped you had taken at least a little on board from yesterday, but I see I was wrong, you are continuing with your editing in the same style, best of luck. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have chosen to ignore a broad consensus which only one editor disputed, and have made a series of poor edits to the article. Verbalchat12:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you could let Dbachmann answer in his own words, in that thread, before you answer? (I fully respect your own opinion/views, and would welcome them there later, but I'm trying to get some feedback from him there, or a very specific point, which I'd like to get his views on. [Hopefully that makes sense, and is taken as a friendly request] :) Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Me giving my answer in no way precludes him giving his. If you want a private conversation, try email. I've already answered; I can't fulfil your request for that reason. Thanks, Verbalchat22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Human disguise
Concerning your recent activity at Human disguise, I'd like to point out that WP:BRD is an essay, nothing more. Just someone's interpretation of policy and suggested guideline pages. And primary sources do count for reliable sources, if there is no reasonable doubt about the content. If you have a problem with any part of the article, then discuss it on the talk page. Don't just keep mass reverting/deleting the contributions of others. DreamFocus16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
What's your argument for ignoring WP:OR, WP:NOTE, etc etc? I am expressing more than reasonable doubt, and I find your behaviour disruptive and damaging to both wikipedia and ARS. Verbalchat16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Read the reliable source policy page Wikipedia:RS where it mentions primary sources. It isn't original research to quote the primary source in these cases. I and one other editor who has reverted you, find your behavior to be disruptive. Use the talk page to discuss things, and form a proper consensus as is the proper Wikipedia method. DreamFocus16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong, and much of the page remains unsourced. It is still only your opinion that this trope is notable, and you are using primary sources that use anything that can be even remotely construed as some kinf of "disguise". Your page ownership, lack of discussion, nonsensical arguments, etc are disruptive. The abuse of process that led to the recreation of this article was disruptive. The primary sources are not supporting the notability of this concept in general of in the specific cases, they only serve to show that the term, or some variation, is used. You still haven't shown notability, and I'm sick of having to waste my time cleaning up after you. I'd rather the article is kept, but you are making that very very hard by adding poorly referenced or unreferenced junk, and not at all addressing the central issue of notability. You are damaging wikipedia, ignoring policy and process, and guaranteeing the deletion of this page. Lastly, please don't post here again on this topic unless you have RS that show the notability of this concept (not your OR etc). Verbalchat16:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You now claim to want the article saved, but have already stated early on, Strong, Speedy Delete and salt in the AFD. Now you keep erasing large chunks from it. I don't think you want it saved at all. I won't bother commenting on your other statements, since I see no point in doing so. DreamFocus16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
If you provided any evidence that this was notable I'd change my opinion, whereas it seems you will try to save almost any article even without reason. Please don't post here again unless you can establish notability for this article. I am not erasing, and I'm asking for sources. The fact you resist any improvement to the article is not going to convince people to keep, as they'll think you'll keep pushing to include unsources or poorly sourced trivia and OR. Verbalchat16:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You were edit warring on that page. Don't do it again. Eventually warnings run out and defenses that one side or the other is wrong won't avail you. On top of that, it's an exceptionally stupid thing to edit war over. My advice is, when more than one person reverts you, it is time to leave the discussion. Go have a smoke or a coffee or "tea" or "cookies" or whatever notional cool-off periods you dig as a wikipedian. It beats being forced into discussions like that and/or being blocked. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You are attacking other editors, I am not. You are not discussing the article or trying to resolve the issue, I am. Have a look at some of our basic policies. Verbalchat19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't speak of wikipedia as if it is part of you... eg, our policies, as you said, please take a little time to re-read (if you have read them) the wikipedia policies you are so fond of linking to. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your problem with my use of "our". Is English not your first language, as that could explain some of your misunderstandings. I haven't linked you to any polices, I am a member of the wikipedia community, as are you, and they are our policies, and again you are attacking a fellow editor. Verbalchat20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Aspartame article
Hi Verbal, your revert to my NPOV edits can not be justified on the basis of an appeal to Wikipedia NPOV rules. I will assume you were just being hasty considering the edit wars that occur around this topic. If you care to look at the reference, it is an authoritative journal (Environmental Health Perspectives) which publishes many papers on aspartame. The specific reference I add to the label "controversial" is correspondence between the author of the 2007 safety study, and the lead scientist behind the 2006 Ramazzini study. There is no more authoritative source for this controversy than a dispute between two opposing scientists in one of the leading journals. I will be reverting your revert, and urge you to carefully read the NPOV guidelines before making further reverts on an NPOV basis. Fxsstm (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I advise you not to do that, and to review the talk page of the article and the controversy article. Please get consensus for your addition on the talk page, and don't edit war. Verbalchat10:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Verbal, you've reverted a good faith edit which is NPOV, on the basis of an erroneous appeal to NPOV rules. As an experienced Wikipedia user you should be aware that a revert should be a last resort (as it was made in good faith and is NPOV): "A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert."
Skipping this courtesy, and going straight to multiple reverts is edit-warring behaviour. I have illustrated on this page how the edit is authoritative and NPOV, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. Appealing to a BRD process after this is skipping past your initial responsibilities as a fellow editor.
Do not revert due to no consensus. My minor addition is the evidence that offloads the burden (Environmental Health Perspectives). If you dispute it as a reputable source you can start a discussion about whether it is a reliable source. I've only continued discussion on your talk page as my issue is with your questionable application of Wikipedia rules and processes as a Wikipedia editor. I have engaged you in good faith, but at this point do not feel it has been reciprocated. Please can you respond to my repeated request asking what part of my minor addition is not a statement of fact (NPOV)? Thank you, it is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxsstm (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken, there is already an existing consensus at this article and the related controversy article. I restored the consensus and NPOV version. You should attempt to justify your edits on the article talk page. Verbalchat11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I am a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia and misinterpreted that particular link. My issue with your actions as an experienced Wikipedia editor still stand. Will you not engage with any of my complaints regarding your actions and justifications? I will continue discussion of proposed changes on the appropriate page as recommended.Fxsstm (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I thought maybe you could use a light read, real light, and maybe a giggle or two. :) I accidentally ran across this article and I am still laughing. It's still amazing to me what people think makes an article. Anyways, it definitely needs clean up or probably deletion science is over my head. Anyways, enjoy! [7] Do you think this falls inline with seeing Santa if you look hard enough? That is what I was told as a very young child, "if you look real hard, you'll see Santa riding his sled to make it to all the good little boys and girls". :) I hope you are doing well. Thanks Verbal, --CrohnieGalTalk11:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
English defence league
Hi verbal. The english defence league site is utterly devoid of a neutral point of view.It is clearly an attack piece.How can it be flagged as such ?
Guardian reader (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The article, as far as I can tell, accurately represents the mainstream view (from press, politicians, groups and other and WP:RS) of this political group. It seems to comply with WP:NPOV. I do not see any evidence that it is an attack piece. Verbalchat16:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
Don't argue with THF. If he's taken his tendentious editing from Waterboarding to Bybee Memo, just file another AE request. It's transparent that's he's gaming the system by retiring from the one article and moving to another closely related. That should not be tolerated. JehochmanBrrr14:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please identify one tendentious edit I've made on Bybee Memo. Are you really claiming that an article that consists largely of listings of criticism of a living person is outside the BLP policy because the title refers to an inanimate object? THF (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for political lobbying. You need to stop engaging in that sort of activity, or else you will be banned completely. JehochmanBrrr14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
How am I politically lobbying to note that an article is factually inaccurate and fails to comply with NPOV and BLP? Why aren't you addressing the editor who wrote such a slanted article if you are really concerned about political lobbying?
(edit conflict) Fair enough, I was hoping to reason with THF, and my post to waterboarding was made before his revert. I still hope he calms down - and I understand he may be angry right now, but I will back away from that article for now. THF: I would assume it's the same as the waterboarding article as it is a subarticle. Best, Verbalchat14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Someone with the authority to do so needs to add a template to Talk:Bybee Memo if it's subject to AE. In good faith, I don't think it is, and a page that is subject to AE should have notice of it somewhere on the page. Until that's resolved, I'll restrict my edits to the talkpage and to WP:BLPN. Feel free to revert any edits I made that you believe are inappropriate. THF (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the source you flagged as broken on the psychic article in fact worked. Also, could you please explain how it is unreliable? It was from a scientific organistation, the Parapsychological Association I believe. Thanks Macromonkey (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Seth Material
I would appreciate it if you would respond to my query at the bottom of the Discussion page. I would like to see the exact policies that are guiding your behavior.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No, sorry. I support what you have written there, but I have not acted improperly so this proposal doesn't really make sense. However, I would support a topic ban for Caleb. Note that none of his long post to AN3, which was basically a personal attack, was supported by evidence - and neither can it be supported, whereas edit warring is merely one example of his problematic behaviour. I realise you are trying to be fair and reach a compromise, but there is no reason I should avoid the page, especially not as a preventative measure. Verbalchat07:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have asked Murdock to agree to a 1RR. There is no suggestion that you've acted improperly. It is possible that the verdict of WP:AN may need to be requested at some point, since long-term edit-warring cases are kind of mushy, unless there is one single behavior that stands out as a policy violation. Occasionally a certain piece of material that clearly does not belong is being restored to the article over and over. Topic bans tend to be controversial, and I think a 1RR is easier to justify. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I am getting a bit worn down by this editors constant attacks, and it seems he will accept nothing I say or do (discussion results in accusations I wont discuss...), and his reply to your 1RR request seems to indicate a degree of wikilawyering and that he will continue to revert me or anyone else who tries to trim down the huge amount of unsourced or poorly supported material, or who tries to improve the article in any way that he doesn't agree with. Verbalchat20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Verbal. I saw in Talk:Bybee Memo you had an interest in the Bybee Memo page so I wanted to give you a heads up that I am trying incrementally to clean it up (no small task), update it, and then thinking of retitling it as "Torture Memos" since that is how the media universally refer to these materials. For reasons I stated on its discussion page, Bybee Memo isn't the right title. Since it seems there was a lot of controversy about the page and even some sort of arbitration to which I was not privy, I am hoping to notify all the editors so nobody feels blindsided. I'd appreciate a quick yea or nay on the Bybee Memo discussion page on the proposed move/ renaming. Thanks, best wishes.ElijahBosley (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In view of your comment there that Jimbo's talkpage isn't WP:DR, I'm not responding to Smatprt's comments about me there. If you happen to notice things taking a turn that does require a response, then do please let me know. (I'm not a regular follower of Jimbo's talk pages. The only edit I can remember making to any before this incident was in the recent poll about sighted edits.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Out-of-place artifact. 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/Out-of-place artifact. 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, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice try!
[10] If he carries on like that tomorrow, I'll open an RfC, then we'll see where the consensus is :) Not that I'd object to anyone replacing the material meanwhile, but Off2rio's attitude does need to be sorted out somehow...! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You recently reverted edits to the page in question, citing them as my edits, and criticising me for reverting good faith improvements. I don't have a problem with you reverting these edits, or any of my edits in fact. However, if you look through the history, none of the edits reverted were mine, they were all Penubag's. So why did it flag as my edits? I'm just wondering, as I don't appreciate being criticised for nothing. - Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It's you misreading his edit summary, Highfields. It says "Reverted to revision 367600894 by Highfields" - IE, he reverted TO your revision, not reverted your revision. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem, the edit summary was inaccurate anyway. I think the talk page comment was more the problem. Lesson learned. Verbalchat15:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh sorry, of course. I misread it. I though it just said 'Reverted revision 367600894 by Highfields', as in reverting my revision. No problems then - Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Polite requests are not harassment, but I will refrain from posting there if you wish. I have been attempting to follow WP:DR. Verbalchat11:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't giving you a warning, you were warned already at ANI and on your talk page. I have recently posted in several threads on Jimbo's talkpage and, like many others, have his page on my watchlist. You should stop the behaviour which led to your warnings. Please don't accuse those that disagree with you of stalking, this mirrors your recent problems with WP:DR that caused you to be warned in the first place. Verbalchat21:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I do think you believe you are acting in good faith, however you have been told to stop it and pointed to relevant policy. Verbalchat21:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the diff in question. You said " If you continue to make threats you may be blocked again." That's a threat. I did not make legal threats and you did not need to warn me. Please, just stay civil and we won't have any problems. Don't take your admin position too far, I consider you biased and I feel you should recuse yourself from this case. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you continue, per the warning you were given, you will be blocked (again). See the warning on your talk page. I will not recurs myself from anything. However, you may rest assured I will not personally block you, as I'm not an admin, and I'm going to bed now. Verbalchat22:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
Welcome to the party. I don't recall if you've edited the page before (I usually only remember the accounts that post 5K diatribes about the evils of Big Pharma. Repeatedly) but if not, enjoy the coming shitstorm. If you need sources, I've got 'em. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Lloyd Clayton and Clayton College of Natural Health
OK, I'm perplexed by the notabilty and NPOV templates that you have placed on Lloyd Clayton, Jr., as well as your assertion that the "Degree programs" section in Clayton College of Natural Health must be titled "Non accredited degree programs".
I recognize that anything related to Lloyd Clayton or CCNH is likely to become a bone of contention, but I tried to make the new Lloyd Clayton article as neutral as possible. Labeling it with the NPOV template is likely to encourage the inevitable criticism. Before I have to start defending the article, could you explain what nonneutral POV is expressed in the article?
As for notability, I agree that I have had difficulty (using only the Internet) finding much biographical information about Clayton. However, his involvement with founding these various schools is pretty well documented by multiple sources, and I believe that his being reliably documented as having founded multiple institutions of higher education qualifies him under a general interpretation of WP:BIO. I created that article largely because information about his involvement in various different schools he established have been expunged from articles like Clayton College of Natural Health for not being directly relevant to those articles. The fact that the same person founded Chadwick University, CCNH, and a school that is a predecessor to American Sentinel University may not be directly relevant to the articles about CCNH and American Sentinel University, but it's directly relevant to an article about that person.
As for the "non-accredited degree programs", I have several reasons for wanting to delete the word "non-accredited":
The biggest of these is that practices like adding the term "non-accredited" in a heading have often been criticized at Wikipedia (correctly, I think) as gratuitous repetitions of negativity in articles like this one, in which the lead sentence states that the institution is non-accredited and the text of the article is largely about the lack of accreditation. (It's not as if a reader with much more than a minimal command of English could miss the point that the school is not accredited.)
There is nothing in U.S. law (nor in standard parlance, AFAIK) that defines the word "degree" as implying or requiring accreditation, so there is no need to modify the word "degree" with that disclaimer. Some states do make it illegal to award a "degree" without accreditation, and some states make it illegal to claim to have a degree from an unaccredited institution (or to claim such a degree without adding the disclaimer "unaccredited"), but that does not mean that the word "degree" always implies accreditation.
As a general rule, "degree programs" aren't accredited in the U.S. The U.S. educational accreditation process emphasizes institutional accreditation, not programmatic accreditation. (However, programmatic accreditation by specialized accreditors does apply to many pre-professional programs.) Thus, there is no particular meaning to labeling the "degree programs" as "non-accredited." For comparison, the "program" of education leading to a history degree from Harvard is not accredited as a degree program, but the institution is accredited.
I don't want to engage in an edit war over this word, but I do want it to be removed. (Of course, a better solution would be to thoroughly revamp the article to eliminate those headings, but that's more of a commitment than I personally care to make to that topic.) --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Please take article discussion to the article talk pages. To label them degree programs when they are worthless is POV. I do not want to edit war, and I am willing to compromise. Removing it is not a valid solution. Verbalchat15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Shucks, I was hoping you'd explain your reasoning regarding the NPOV template on Lloyd Clayton, Jr.. Since I don't know why you perceive the article to be non-neutral and I don't want to try to conduct an argument with myself on the talk page regarding the neutrality of the article, I am going to remove the template from that article. I will leave the notability template so as to invite others to judge the situation.
As for the word "non-accredited" in the CCNH article, I consider the inclusion of that word in a heading to be a case of WP:UNDUE, for reasons given above. The article repeatedly states that the school is unaccredited. Having made thousands (by my estimation) of edits to articles about accreditation and unaccredited institutions, and having been castigated numerous times by proponents of these schools who have accused me of having various nefarious reasons for making edits that they deem to be deleterious to the noble interests of their pet school, I have no intention of starting a talk-page discussion over a disagreement over a single word -- particularly when the person I am disagreeing with is someone who agrees that the school is not accredited (a reality that some contributors will not accept) and shares my view that it is probably not educationally sound. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't given a fuller reply. I do think the article has POV problems but I will revisit it in the future - I have a lot on at the moment. I don't dispute your good intentions and the good edits you have made. Verbalchat18:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Tags at Mass Killing
This was brought up here [11] The admin involved clearly stated the tags should not be reinserted unless a reason for them was given on the article talk page, none has. Please self revert mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you give a reason why you think it valid? Either here or open a section on the article talk to explain your revert as you should have done. mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Due to the discussion on the talk page, the systematic bias of the page, the discussion at the AfDs, etc Verbalchat18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Verbal. You have new messages at WP:ANEW. Message added 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please do not edit war and participate in the discussion
I work on Artist pages, and have been working on a Philip Jamison article. adding referencing. I'm just starting to pull more information on him. I saw that it is linked to the Jamison Twins. It looks pretty interesting, would it be okay if I did some research on them and see what I can come up with? Thank you!Thisandthem (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
EDL
Do you have strong opinions about the use of the word "political" in the lede? The RS position is stronger for something like "street movement". --SnowdedTALK15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
sources
Sources can only be used for phrase they contain, your edit here [[12]] seems to be designed to imply the source support the use of the word political, which hte source do not do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Please outline them on the talk page - its not clear that the local press is authoritative enough and the others seem to be indirect. Verbal, we normally agree on political issues, but we are all bound by the rules and this needs to be discussed. Please do that or you will end up with a block and we could all do without that. --SnowdedTALK14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The only quotes you have provided are from two small local newpapers. Most of the sources you are using to source the word do not in fact use it to describe the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Unblock
{{unblock|Page is protected, I did not break 3RR. Please unblock. There was no disruptive editing aimed at the admin, I simply disputed what he said on this page, as I am allowed. If I came across too strong I apologise. If I can be convinced otherwise by discussion that would be great, but this block doesn't seem helpful in any way. Verbalchat20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
After discussion with blocking admin, I am considered "uninvolved". Second block within mere minutes of first was in response to comments made over first block that were clearly not disruptive. Unblocking should not lead to additional editing problems from this editor. A continuation of the block would be punitive, not preventative)
