User talk:Verbal/Old01

{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 120K |counter = 2 |algo = old(5d) |archive = Uslolz

This editor supports Sense About Science
in defending author Simon Singh
from a
chiropractic attempt
to chill free speech.
Sense About Science site

Edit War

Why am I being targeted as being in an edit war when all I am doing is disagreeing with the edits that some users are changing? Did you let Hipocrite know that he is in an edit war and give him the same warning or was it just me? I am honestly feeling targeted by you and by Hipocrite and do not appreciate it.

Ian Stevenson

I feel that someone removing the criticism section from the article [1] is very problematic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Stars4change

I saw that you left a warning at User:Stars4change in April over inappropriate use of talk pages. I've warned him twice as well but w/o effect it seems.Fuzbaby (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much we can do except keep an eye on it for now. Verbal chat 16:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi, I can take the credit for Micromonkey, and one of the IP addresses (I don't remember which one I will have to check the archives). I don't find it fair that Yinyanchin was blocked however:that user account is not a sockpuppet of mine. I found the user through the cold reading talk page, and recently realised that the page had been blanked, so I reverted it with another account. Admittedly, you are unlikely to believe me on this one, but I thought I should at least try to save others the consequences of my actions. Anyway, act on this as you will, all the best, Macromonkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.67.99 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I have notified the blocking admin and will let them handle it. You have done what you can. Thanks Macromonkey. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this BR. Verbal chat 16:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

homeopathy talk

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

Then contribute to a section discussing that on the talk page (hint, not a section about tea). My talk page is not the place to debate article issues. If you put comments in a thread that are off the topic of the thread expect them to be ignored. Feel free to copy your comment to a new or relevant thread on the talk page. However, note that the talk page is covered by WP:AE so you won't be given the same leeway you've enjoyed on user talk pages. Part of the reason why I like the discussion to stay where it should be. Re your 'factual statements', they are your opinion, not fact, and they do not improve the talk page atmosphere. We do not want the conversation to descend to levels we have witnessed elsewhere. There are several topics conflated in this post, so I'll try to be brief. 1, Discuss the article on the article talk page, in appropriate or new threads. 2, If you want behavioural advice I'm more than willing to tutor you. For an example, rather than making general statements of bad faith as you did, give specific examples with diffs. You say "Politely discussing the actions of editors, particularly actions that disrupt the editing process, is not uncivil" and I agree. What you did was not polite to my British sensibilities. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"making general statements of bad faith as you did" <-- I made no statements in bad faith. The type of disruptive behavior I mentioned can be documented by looking at the edit history. Gently discussing such disruptive behavior is an effective way of getting some people to examine their behavior. "give specific examples with diffs" <-- Yes, for hard-core POV pushers it comes down to that in the end, but some editors can take hints and change their behavior in response to gentle reminders. I prefer gentle reminders because, unlike some other editors, I'd feel foolish using threats and bluster in an attempt to enforce ownership of a Wikipedia page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Query re: links

Hi Verbal. Do you know if it's possible to have a WP link that shows different text to what the link is? It sometimes seems quite difficult to include a WP link in a grammatically appropriate way... also if I want to link to a sub-link of the page do I have to have the whole ugly link (like on the Sagan page) or can I hide the sub-link bit? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's quite easy, you put a | (bar/pipe, not lemon) between the terms: placebo therapy is made by [[homeopathy|placebo therapy]], although this is an example of an inappropriate use... For a sublink use # after the name, and then write the section name: Homeopathy#Dilution debate is [[Homeopathy#Dilution debate]], but using both together is nicer Homeopathic dilutions debate, which is formed by [[Homeopathy#Dilution debate|Homoeopathic dilutions debate]]. Verbal chat 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha!! So what appears after the pipe within the square brackets appears in the article, but the bit before the pipe mark is the actual link. That's great. Thanks Verbal. Blippy (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't

Please don't comment on my talk page. I don't find your comments helpful or reasonable, so please kind and don't make them on my talk page. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations based on what you perceive to be other peoples religious beliefs. It is highly inappropriate and against wikipedia policy. I will refrain from commenting on your talk page, but I will still post warnings and notifications if required. If you continue in this vein you will be blocked again. Verbal chat 14:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-Wiki

I sent you an e-mail, thought I should let you know here as well in case that goes to an account you might otherwise not check regularly. —Whig (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed I don't check it every day. I may not reply today. Yours, Verbal chat 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you a follow-up reply, but perhaps it would be best to continue discussion here if e-mail is not convenient. —Whig (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

For your enlightenment:

• Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science

• "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I logged on to find this yesterday, just as I was about to send you the link. I also like the Policeman/Community Support Officer one (a cheap, pretend policeman that should be banned...) "That's not police brutality, just "community support" brutality. Verbal chat 08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Telepathy and war

Yes it's true! You are being accused of vandalism at this DRV, and may want to take a look.  pablo_hablo. 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy is getting very disruptive. I noticed he was active earlier today and thought about reply to his Editing Assitance req, but decided to go swimming instead! Verbal chat 08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud and the spirituality section at Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

Here is the dif with one edit summary "we had agreed to keep with tags. the sources are very reliabel". You should probably take this to the talk page if you haven't already and outline problems with the section there. I'm not familiar enough with the history of the sourcing on the page to feel like it would be appropriate to revert (only because I am too lazy to check the references or lack of them right now.) Sifaka ^talk 04:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've removed the material again and commented on both the talk page and the WP:BLPN. This user seems to have a huge problem understanding WP:RS and WP:OR, especially across feminist spirituality pages. Verbal chat 08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, these features os Simone´s spirituality are very well known; that´s nothing new with that. PLEASE leave it there --and besides sources fully account this. She dressess herslf only in white clothing since 1974!! because fo her spiritual master an she has a very close link to christianity --this is widely known here in Brasil (there are other female singers such as Clara Nunes who do the same and in her state Bahia this i also a religion of everyday life). It´s like (or even much more) Madonna and Cabala, it´s just as knwon and just as her personal religion. Ok? Thank you. Jackiestud (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We need WP:RS. Discussion should take place on either the talk page or the WP:BLPN. I'm afraid "common knowledge" and OR doesn't cut it for wikipedia generally, and especially not in a WP:BLP. Have you read the WP:RS and WP:BLP pages? Verbal chat 09:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Example: Have a look at the Johnny Cash article for an example of RS supporting spiritual claims. He always wore black. That article isn't a BLP, as he has died, so the standards are slightly lower - but that article is still hugely superior to the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article. Verbal chat 09:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Avathaar/JWSchmidt

Hi V, please don't engage JWSchmidt in any way -- there is nothing to be gained from doing so, and it only encourages further bafflement and non-sequiturs. I certainly wouldn't say that m:DFTT applies but you should consider the wisdom in WP:SHUN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I already disengaged at Avathaar's talk. If he wants to continue that's up to him, and I'm not going to respond to his posts at BLP any more. Unless someone actually introduces something worth discussing. So I'll not be commenting there any more... Verbal chat 17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)