User talk:Verbal/Old01

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

OUTLINE DISCUSSIONS: 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. Verbal chat

Neal's Yard Remedies

Hi Verbal. I'm concerned that you have reverted the edits made by Horticus to this article. The edits were backed by verifiable citations, and were not (unlike the edit I reverted on that page a few weeks back) removing any of the criticisms. Given that that's the case, I can't see any reason why those edits shouldn't have been allowed to stand, nor why the editor who added them should feel that they need to discuss them on the talk page before adding them. This seems to go a little against the spirit of Wikipedia, and is likely to put off new contributors. But I'd be interested to hear your views. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Verbal - following from the comments from OpenToppedBus keen to understand why you reverted the edits to the Neal's Yard entry? I am new to Wikipedia and this was my first entry. Lots more I want to add but want to get it right, hoping you can help. Horticus (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time I seem to remember thinking they were spammy references, but that clearly isn't true. The only thing I'd ask you to do is to work it into prose rather than have it as the list format. Probably had too many firefox tabs open. Apologies, and best of luck. Verbal chat 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, is it Ok to re-submit the changes or best to edit first? Would an intro and then a list be better? Also seem to be having problems getting the references to link properly, any tips on the correct tagging for this? Horticus (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input on the edits that I reinstated Horticus (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hertfordshire

We've had an interesting intervention from Hertfordshire this morning! It would be interesting for him to document what he disagrees with! ;) Leaky Caldron 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL opening

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. Leaky Caldron 11:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs discussion. I will review your changes. Verbal chat 11:22, 28 October 2009 (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 [1]. 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. Leaky Caldron 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.Verbal chat 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Scunthorpe motorsports typo

It most certainly was a typo, but I hope you can see the funny side! Thanks for correcting it. Tom Green (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Verbal chat 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Passage Meditation article

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.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 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. Verbal chat 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. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your use of FTN

You appear to be canvassing again. you also do not appear to be paying that much attention to the edits you've actually made. I would ask you to redact. Artw (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be incorrect, again. Verbal chat 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not my battle but...

Anthropomorphism might cover some of that Human disguise debate. Just a thought.... Leaky Caldron 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann's note

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, Verbal chat 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have seen it coming.

Regarding the list of psychic abilities: 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).

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 bilocation: "[He] 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!"

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...

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 Carrie versus pyrokinesis in Firestarter)? 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?

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.

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. Apo-kalypso (talk) 08:05, 31 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. Dream Focus 16:14, 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. Verbal chat 16:16, 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. Dream Focus 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). Verbal chat 16:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)