| Revision as of 18:35, 1 November 2009 editRamdrake (talk | contribs)8,680 edits User is perfectly entitled to remove anything from his own talk page.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:44, 16 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,025,681 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] | ||
| (524 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == talkback == | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 120K | |||
| |counter = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Verbal/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| ]''<br>in defending author ]<br>from a<br> ] attempt<br>to ] ].'''<br /> | |||
| <small></small></p></center>]] | |||
| {{talkback|Ludwigs2|Talk page comments}} | |||
| ]: My talk page is not the place for general debate about this topic, thanks. If you feel you must comment here on outlines, do it on the subpage linked on the left. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> | |||
| == AfD - Chiropractic controversy and criticism == | |||
| == EDL opening == | |||
| == You have been reported == | |||
| I have reverted to the consensus first sentence. I was thinking that the next section is getting too big. I know you have reverted Spylab's changes, but do you agree that History could now be separated from Current activities, given the additional material now in there? Any further EDL activities will make that section even bigger and I think the History is worthy of it's own Heading. ]] 11:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : It needs discussion. I will review your changes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 11:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| . ] (]) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for you message. This is the only lead restoring edit I needed to make yesterday and it didn't involve removing any other material . If you can find the one that concerns you let me know. I always try to make important changes clear in the edit summary. | |||
| ::I am always careful about which issues I support. I tend to consider the issue rather than the editor and I think I've put my support of Ctp.'s approach to the NPOV board in a neutral way. There may be systemic bias reporting - there may not be. Let's just agree that not everything reported in the press is well researched. Do I personally think that they are far right? I certainly think that they are influenced and have a classic far right approach in their activities. But it is not for me to make that an encyclopaedic fact any more than it is for you or anyone else. I am not backing away from the consensus in supporting an approach for fresh eyes. ]] 10:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks, that is the edit - it didn't just change the lead. I didn't notice the other changes, as going on the ES I thought you had only changed the lead.<span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Attempted tendentious speedy deletion of an ArbComm evidence page. == | |||
| == Scunthorpe motorsports typo == | |||
| . Repeatedly attempting to speedy-delete a page used as ArbComm evidence (it was response before RfAr to your evidence in that case) is disruptive. You've tried this with , , and now this one. Don't try this again. If there is something wrong on that page, describe it on the attached Talk page, notify me, and I'll look at it. I could restore the page, modify it, and reblank. --] (]) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It most certainly was a typo, but I hope you can see the funny side! Thanks for correcting it. ] (]) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem :) <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Outlines 3 == | |||
| == NPOV tag on Passage Meditation article == | |||
| Hi. I'm not sure if you saw the message I left here in April, now archived at ]. It would still be much appreciated if you had any specific feedback on those 2 questions. | |||
| You added a "npov" tag to this article; the tag says "see discussion on talk page" but I can find no comments added by you to either the talk page of PM or to my talk page or to your talk page explaining why you think the tag is justified. Where should I look for this discussion? Would you please explain why you think the tag is justified, and give me an opportunity to correct whatever you think is wrong.] (]) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : te tag is justified by the misleading wording and incorrect use of research studies, as discussed on the article talk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 10:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::can you please be more specific? What is misleading? And I'm not sure also why you say the research studies have been incorrectly used - the research has taken place, is documented, and is relevant - and the debate about the research in the talk page does not seem to me to have concluded that the research is incorrect. I'm happy to make improvements to my additions but can't see why your assertion of NPOV is justified - of course I am interested in Passage Meditation otherwise i would not be providing material for an article - but I've tried to be unbiased and factual in what I've written. ] (]) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| On a separate note: I do strongly agree with you that those copied introductions (and EL sections) are a bad idea, and I agree that they should be removed. However they're not strictly "]s" in the usual sense, so I was wondering if in the future you could use a slightly more nuanced edit summary than just when removing them? Perhaps something like "rm unnecessary intro copy" would get the same point across, but without the badfaith connotations that just writing "rm copyvio" has. (Minnecologies and ] have put quite a few hours into appropriately noting the copying, per the GFDL requirements). Thanks. | |||
| ::Dear Verbal, Since you've not yet responded may I add something to my quick note above? I don't think it's reasonable for you to put a "npov" tag on the article when HealthResearcher has posted on the discussion page the question asking how the current version of the research section may lack NPOV given that they represent findings from peer-reviewed studies, and he/she knows of know other studies that conflict with those findings, and no-one has yet responded. Is it not more correct to try to reach consensus on the discussion page, rather than your placing a NPOV tag (which is very prominent in the article) - a tag which does not yet reflect the outcome of the discussion. I hope we can reach agreement on this smoothly - the article was originally (and probably correctly) criticised for being a bit skimpy, and inevitably as material is added it may give rise to discussion, which we all benefit from if we can then end up with a more complete and accurate article. Thanks, ] (]) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| On a second separate note: Could we hold off on any further page-moves until the discussion gets going again? I have no preference for any of the old or proposed names (list of topics, list of basic topics, topical outline, outline, etc), but it would be good if the whole set was at least somewhat consistent, or at the least not being potentially-contentiously moved around still further.<br>(For example: the original title was ] in 2001, then it was moved to ] in 2005, then to ] in 2006, then to ] in 2008, and then to ] in March 2009. You moved it to ] today.) | |||
| == Your use of FTN == | |||
| Much thanks. -- ] (]) 20:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : You appear to be incorrect, again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: <sub>Unwelcome comment removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span></sub> | |||
| == It's not my battle but... == | |||
| ::{{adminnote}} Any outline/list page should stay exactly where they are unless a discussion is first had on the talk page or a broader RFC is concluded. Thank you, ] ''(])'' 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Does this apply to all list articles and all editors? Can you please show the consensus for this action? This must apply to the creation of outlines and lists too? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In general, in an area where edits are going to be controversial no matter what, ] ought to be set aside while a broader consensus is developed. Otherwise, it simply encourages edit warring. Apparently, events moved ahead while I was not around, so this is just advice to keep in mind for the future. ] ''(])'' 03:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Blocked=== | |||
| == Dbachmann's note == | |||
| The page moves you have engaged in are entirely unacceptable. The question of articles named "Outline of..." is the subject of a peninding RfC and moves should not be made pending the community having resolved this issue. You were well aware that moving pages away from such titles would cause controversy and be disruptive. This is hardly a new matter, and I stand by the warning I gave towards the end of last year : "''it is now clear that the moving of "List of ..." articles to "Outline of ..." and vice versa now constitutes a move war (notwithstanding that many articles are involved and that some of these may not yet have been moved)''". Please refrain from any further such page moves until a consensus has been established in respect of "Outlines of..." articles. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 23:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not sure I understand this block. As best I can tell, Verbal has not edited for 6 days now, so I can't see how this block prevents any sort of active disruption. Am I missing something? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. I was wondering if you could let Dbachmann answer in his own words, in that thread, before ? (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. :) Much thanks. -- ] (]) 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, <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yeah, I echo MastCell's concerns. ] (]) 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == I should have seen it coming. == | |||
| ::: Me three! As I recall, when this whole mess started a long time ago, it was ] who was the one displaying ownership on this matter and trying to force this on Misplaced Pages. I hope that any attempts by Verbal to revert TT's ownership haven't been counted as edit warring rather than restoring the status quo. -- ] (]) 04:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the ]: I felt as though the basis of distinguishing from among "real-world" and "fictional" psychic abilities was not altogether clear. There are some who believe with unassailable certainty that all aspects of the paranormal are fiction and, furthermore, that those who make assertions to the contrary are, at best, misguided, perhaps delusional. Were such a person to be presented with one list comprised of psychic abilities that have manifested in the so-called real world and another drawn from fictional sources, he or she would inevitably fail to see any difference at all between the two and summarily dismiss them both as products of an overactive imagination (and maybe even add "Get a life!" for good measure). | |||
| ::::Me four. In my thread-starting post above, where I discussed page moves, I specifically avoided mentioning the agreement to not move any further pages from , in an effort to ''not'' escalate matters. We're trying to have a rational discourse at ], and punitive blocks do not help. -- ] (]) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Me five, or possibly six. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="color: #c30;">].</sub> 07:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| That claims of psychic ability have a demonstrated resistance to independent verification and replication under controlled conditions - for whatever reason - hardly lends credence to the opposing argument (the mention of this is a common element in most articles on psychic abilities). It also does not help matters when declarations of psychic ability may be nothing more than the product of self-serving bias. One of my favorite illustrations of this relates to Aliester Crowley, a man who, by any measure, never seemed to lack for a high opinion of himself or the company of others who were willing to glorify him on his behalf (although I mean no disrespect either to him or his adherents, of course). It comes from the article on ]: " was reported by acquaintances to have the ability, even though he himself was not conscious of its happening at the time." I can just imagine the conversation that took place after this occurred. | |||
| Crony: "Aliester, I saw you on the moor yesterday." | |||
| Crowley: "But I was here at the manor all day." | |||
| Crony: "You know what this means, don't you? You must have been in both places at the same time!" | |||
| Crowley: "Oh. Alright. I suppose I was. That is, yes, of course I was!" | |||
| ::::::I'm sorry but I looked at Verbal's contributions and he hasn't been online here since the 22nd of this month. I too have to disagree with this block as being wrong. Please unblock with a notation of why. Thanks, --]] 13:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| On the one hand, I am not denying that he possessed this ability; in a similar regard, I am not implying that his acquaintances were somehow mistaken in their attribution. On the other hand... | |||
| {{tlx|1=unblock|2=Please unblock immediately, with a note that the block was unwarranted. I have no acted against any policy or in violation of any valid warnings or against any active or even soon-to-be-active RfC. I'm quite surprised by this. There has been no disruption, and a block for some perceived problem six days after the event is well outside blocking policy. I am willing to discuss any contested moves, and it seems clear WJBScribe has acted improperly.}} | |||
| {| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em" | ] | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| '''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): | |||
| Another significant problem is encountered in attempting to determine which of the sources documenting psychic abilities are works of fiction, or at least unreliable and inaccurate, and which ones are not. Some might be obvious, but other instances are not quite so clear-cut. Any one of us can conduct an on-line search and, in very short order, find a site wherein some person lays claim to an ability that has all the appearance of something straight from the pages of a fantasy or science fiction novel. Are these individuals attempting to deceive us (or just themselves)? Should we dismiss their claims? And, if so, why their claims as opposed to anyone else's? Beyond the internet, which are the reliable and accurate sources? Religious and spiritual texts from every cultural tradition abound with tales of people who display what could be described as psychic abilities. Are these fictional accounts? All of them, or just some? On what criteria do you base this decision? In certain cases, psychic abilities that appear in works of fiction, while perhaps embellished for dramatic effect, are modeled after those claimed by people in the real world. Should these abilities, simply because they are mentioned in a work of fiction, be excluded out of hand (for example, telekinesis in '']'' versus pyrokinesis in '']'')? Do we only dedicate our attention to psychic abilities that are the focus of scholarly research and scientific experimentation? Does the metaphorical tweed jacket or lab coat automatically confer authority and credibility? | |||
| <br><br>I have unblocked for now, based on the above - I see that the blocking admin is unavailable | |||
| ''Request handled by:'' (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) | |||
| My only intention here is to highlight the difficulties inherent in undertaking to separate "fiction" from the "real world" when it comes to psychic abilities in order to better define the scope of the list, and, as a kind of disclaimer, let prospective readers know that there is some uncertainty with regards to telling the difference. The manner in which I tried to convey this idea in the lead paragraph might have come across as evincing some sort of personal bias or be perceived as an attempt to detract from or undermine the validity of the list itself, but nothing could be further from the truth. I do not want to influence other's beliefs one way or the other on the subject of psychic abilities, however I may feel about it myself. That said, I am totally open to suggestions for revising this particular contribution, if indeed it is an appropriate issue to raise in conjunction with the list. | |||
| <small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks"></span> on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small> | |||
| I am also willing to discuss the rationale behind the other changes I made, and welcome your thoughts. I believe they are worthwhile and sincerely hope they will not be rejected in their entirety. Thank you. ] (]) 08:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
| |} | |||
| :<s>I also find it strange that The Transhumanist has undone my policy (and hence consensus) supported edits, and has not been blocked - without any attempt and discussion, restoring his contested renames. I don not think he should be, but his edits should be reversed and he should be warned not to edit war. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)</s> <sub>See below <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)</sub> | |||
| ::He was at the same time, and warned at ]. Rightfully so! (Possibly that was why WJBscribe deemed it necessary to block you? He saw that TT ''had'' to be blocked, and was trying to be even-handed? That doesn't justify the block here, but it might rationalize it..). | |||
| ::Hopefully we can quickly put this ugly situation in the past, and get back to slow intelligent discussions about "basic topic lists/outlines" in general. -- ] (]) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then I strike the above, written when I first learned of the block. Apologies for that. With this new layout I didn't see he'd been blocked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Nice to see that justice prevailed. Even-handed blocking is often unjust and reflects that the blocker doesn't understand the situation. -- ] (]) 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Arrgh...I did ask you nicely to not prove me wrong. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I filled a CSD, it was refused, and next time I will go to MfD or whatever. No big deal. Nothing interesting has happened. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll likely be busy for a few days, presentation coming up, so I'll probably not do MfD/AC/whatever, if I so decide, until Wed at earliest. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Your latest modification in MMR controversy page == | |||
| == Human disguise == | |||
| Dear Sir , I am not an experienced wikipedian , nor a native english speaker : OK . Still, I do not understand why you directly choose to revert my latests edits ! Couldn't you write a message in the discussion page , if something was not clear ? Couldn't you ameliorate the parts that didn't sound clear to you instead of reverting ? Thanks for answering .] (]) 14:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm going to have to agree with Verbal on that ... comma's in the wrong places, information was pluralized ... it's clear that English is not your first language. It would be better for you to discuss the changes on the talkpage of the article, and clarify the grammar for inclusion. I'm not trying to be insulting here, merely of assistance. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I didn't mean to cause offence, and didn't realise you're new. Please post your addition to the article talk page and ask for it to be reviewed and reworded there. I left my explanation in the edit summary. The content and it's sourcing, and whether it is a good addition, will also be discussed. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hatting an inappropriate talk page thread== | |||
| What is your problem with that ? ] (]) 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Misleading note, inappropriate cut and paste. Just link the two dicussions and ask any further contributors to move their additions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Misleading? ] (]) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == rv at GW? == | |||
| Concerning your recent activity at ], I'd like to point out that ] 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. ]''' 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : What's your argument for ignoring ], ], etc etc? I am expressing more than reasonable doubt, and I find your behaviour disruptive and damaging to both[REDACTED] and ARS. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read the reliable source policy page ] 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 Misplaced Pages method. ]''' 16:19, 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). <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:26, 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. ]''' 16:32, 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You said "Reverted to revision 366399640 by Simplex1swrhs; these changes have been universally condemned on the talk page." - was this an error? Your revert was actually which isn't terribly exciting ] (]) 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Some replies == | |||
| == Re Edits to D-Wave Systems article == | |||
| :Verbal, this is not a battle worth fighting. That's not to say that you're right or wrong, just that it's not worth fighting about. If the template is being placed as a knee-jerk without any reasoning or discussion, then it's liable to be removed. If it's placed with good intent and with some good-faith effort to justify it, then it should remain throughout the discussion. If this common-sense approach is not being followed in practice, then please let me know. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| My apologies for not first posting about the addition of peer-reviewed sources on the talk page, but it had already been suggested there that links to peer-reviewed sources be added, so I didn't anticipate that adding such sources would be objectionable. I've now voiced further concerns there, beyond just my addition. The article contains very little information about the company and its technology, and seems to imply that there are few recent peer-reviewed papers published by the company on its technology, which is demonstrably false. I am eager to hear your thoughts on the subject at the ]. Thanks. ] (]) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would agree with MastCell. "possibly disruptive" is too toothless to be worth arguing about -- removal of any template is "possibly disruptive" -- but no indication that the 'possibility' will pan out. In any case, I see no indication that the ARS's pronouncements are (even a putative) policy or guideline having authority on non-ARS-members. Further, ARSing an article appears to be a 'last desperate hope' in any case, so I see little point in attempting to police how absurdly far the desperation can extend. If they want to template articles that are ] deletes (or even WP:SNOW keeps for that matter), it does us no real harm, and just makes them look silly. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Canadian thank you == | ||
| Thanks for your civility and patience with a noobie. *presents beavertail* (the dessert kind) ] (]) 07:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Verbal. I have a question about WP policy, and I thought of asking you since you're an experienced editor and did welcome me to WP offering to help if I had questions. | |||
| I have a disagreement with a user about whether a certain survey should be included in a page or not. The discussion is ]. In short, the user added his own non-notable non-free book as a survey reference, which I object to since there are multiple free surveys written by the people who founded the field. What should I do in such a case? Was my response appropriate? Should I remove the reference again after the user has reinserted it? --] (]) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've asked him to justify the addition on the talk page, and removed it pending some good reasons. I also made a suggestion for expanding the article. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. --] (]) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:44, 16 November 2024
talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AfD - Chiropractic controversy and criticism
You have been reported
Here. Mitsube (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Attempted tendentious speedy deletion of an ArbComm evidence page.
. Repeatedly attempting to speedy-delete a page used as ArbComm evidence (it was response before RfAr to your evidence in that case) is disruptive. You've tried this with speedy 1, MfD? not actually filed, just wasted time, and now this one. Don't try this again. If there is something wrong on that page, describe it on the attached Talk page, notify me, and I'll look at it. I could restore the page, modify it, and reblank. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Outlines 3
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw the message I left here in April, now archived at User talk:Verbal/Archive 3#Outlines 2. It would still be much appreciated if you had any specific feedback on those 2 questions.
On a separate note: I do strongly agree with you that those copied introductions (and EL sections) are a bad idea, and I agree that they should be removed. However they're not strictly "copyvios" in the usual sense, so I was wondering if in the future you could use a slightly more nuanced edit summary than just "rm copyvio" when removing them? Perhaps something like "rm unnecessary intro copy" would get the same point across, but without the badfaith connotations that just writing "rm copyvio" has. (Minnecologies and others have put quite a few hours into appropriately noting the copying, per the GFDL requirements). Thanks.
On a second separate note: Could we hold off on any further page-moves until the discussion gets going again? I have no preference for any of the old or proposed names (list of topics, list of basic topics, topical outline, outline, etc), but it would be good if the whole set was at least somewhat consistent, or at the least not being potentially-contentiously moved around still further.
(For example: the original title was Economics basic topics in 2001, then it was moved to List of basic economical topics in 2005, then to List of basic economics topics in 2006, then to Topic outline of economics in 2008, and then to Outline of economics in March 2009. You moved it to List of economics related articles today.)
Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note Any outline/list page should stay exactly where they are unless a discussion is first had on the talk page or a broader RFC is concluded. Thank you, NW (Talk) 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Does this apply to all list articles and all editors? Can you please show the consensus for this action? This must apply to the creation of outlines and lists too? Verbal chat 16:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- In general, in an area where edits are going to be controversial no matter what, WP:BOLD ought to be set aside while a broader consensus is developed. Otherwise, it simply encourages edit warring. Apparently, events moved ahead while I was not around, so this is just advice to keep in mind for the future. NW (Talk) 03:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Does this apply to all list articles and all editors? Can you please show the consensus for this action? This must apply to the creation of outlines and lists too? Verbal chat 16:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
The page moves you have engaged in are entirely unacceptable. The question of articles named "Outline of..." is the subject of a peninding RfC and moves should not be made pending the community having resolved this issue. You were well aware that moving pages away from such titles would cause controversy and be disruptive. This is hardly a new matter, and I stand by the warning I gave towards the end of last year : "it is now clear that the moving of "List of ..." articles to "Outline of ..." and vice versa now constitutes a move war (notwithstanding that many articles are involved and that some of these may not yet have been moved)". Please refrain from any further such page moves until a consensus has been established in respect of "Outlines of..." articles. WJBscribe (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand this block. As best I can tell, Verbal has not edited for 6 days now, so I can't see how this block prevents any sort of active disruption. Am I missing something? MastCell 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I echo MastCell's concerns. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me three! As I recall, when this whole mess started a long time ago, it was User:The Transhumanist who was the one displaying ownership on this matter and trying to force this on Misplaced Pages. I hope that any attempts by Verbal to revert TT's ownership haven't been counted as edit warring rather than restoring the status quo. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me four. In my thread-starting post above, where I discussed page moves, I specifically avoided mentioning the agreement to not move any further pages from before, in an effort to not escalate matters. We're trying to have a rational discourse at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, and punitive blocks do not help. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me three! As I recall, when this whole mess started a long time ago, it was User:The Transhumanist who was the one displaying ownership on this matter and trying to force this on Misplaced Pages. I hope that any attempts by Verbal to revert TT's ownership haven't been counted as edit warring rather than restoring the status quo. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me five, or possibly six. pablohablo. 07:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I looked at Verbal's contributions and he hasn't been online here since the 22nd of this month. I too have to disagree with this block as being wrong. Please unblock with a notation of why. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 13:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Please unblock immediately, with a note that the block was unwarranted. I have no acted against any policy or in violation of any valid warnings or against any active or even soon-to-be-active RfC. I'm quite surprised by this. There has been no disruption, and a block for some perceived problem six days after the event is well outside blocking policy. I am willing to discuss any contested moves, and it seems clear WJBScribe has acted improperly.}}
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request. |
I also find it strange that The Transhumanist has undone my policy (and hence consensus) supported edits, and has not been blocked - without any attempt and discussion, restoring his contested renames. I don not think he should be, but his edits should be reversed and he should be warned not to edit war. Verbal chat 16:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)See below Verbal chat 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)- He was blocked at the same time, and warned at User talk:The Transhumanist#Blocked. Rightfully so! (Possibly that was why WJBscribe deemed it necessary to block you? He saw that TT had to be blocked, and was trying to be even-handed? That doesn't justify the block here, but it might rationalize it..).
- Hopefully we can quickly put this ugly situation in the past, and get back to slow intelligent discussions about "basic topic lists/outlines" in general. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then I strike the above, written when I first learned of the block. Apologies for that. With this new layout I didn't see he'd been blocked. Verbal chat 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nice to see that justice prevailed. Even-handed blocking is often unjust and reflects that the blocker doesn't understand the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then I strike the above, written when I first learned of the block. Apologies for that. With this new layout I didn't see he'd been blocked. Verbal chat 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Arrgh...I did ask you nicely to not prove me wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I filled a CSD, it was refused, and next time I will go to MfD or whatever. No big deal. Nothing interesting has happened. Verbal chat 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll likely be busy for a few days, presentation coming up, so I'll probably not do MfD/AC/whatever, if I so decide, until Wed at earliest. Verbal chat 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Your latest modification in MMR controversy page
Dear Sir , I am not an experienced wikipedian , nor a native english speaker : OK . Still, I do not understand why you directly choose to revert my latests edits ! Couldn't you write a message in the discussion page , if something was not clear ? Couldn't you ameliorate the parts that didn't sound clear to you instead of reverting ? Thanks for answering .Trente7cinq (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree with Verbal on that ... comma's in the wrong places, information was pluralized ... it's clear that English is not your first language. It would be better for you to discuss the changes on the talkpage of the article, and clarify the grammar for inclusion. I'm not trying to be insulting here, merely of assistance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to cause offence, and didn't realise you're new. Please post your addition to the article talk page and ask for it to be reviewed and reworded there. I left my explanation in the edit summary. The content and it's sourcing, and whether it is a good addition, will also be discussed. Thanks. Verbal chat 17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hatting an inappropriate talk page thread
What is your problem with that ? Anthony (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Misleading note, inappropriate cut and paste. Just link the two dicussions and ask any further contributors to move their additions. Verbal chat 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Misleading? Anthony (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
rv at GW?
You said "Reverted to revision 366399640 by Simplex1swrhs; these changes have been universally condemned on the talk page." - was this an error? Your revert was actually which isn't terribly exciting William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Re Edits to D-Wave Systems article
My apologies for not first posting about the addition of peer-reviewed sources on the talk page, but it had already been suggested there that links to peer-reviewed sources be added, so I didn't anticipate that adding such sources would be objectionable. I've now voiced further concerns there, beyond just my addition. The article contains very little information about the company and its technology, and seems to imply that there are few recent peer-reviewed papers published by the company on its technology, which is demonstrably false. I am eager to hear your thoughts on the subject at the talk page. Thanks. Ndickson (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Canadian thank you
Thanks for your civility and patience with a noobie. *presents beavertail* (the dessert kind) Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)