User talk:Verbal/Old01

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Atropa belladonna

Hello, Verbal. You have new messages at Talk:Atropa_belladonna.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What nonsense!!

What nonsense!!--Sophroniscus (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've realised it was nonsense, and that you'll be more productive in future. Verbal chat 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreal

You're british right? Why does your most prestigous university act like a life experience degree fraud with respect to it's own graduates? Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer Oxford (and at a EU funding meeting they claimed me as their own once, which was nice). For postgraduate degrees, they're not much different to any other (<cough> proper) uni. Verbal chat 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

copyvio on Outline of England

I doon't think you can have a copyvio of one wikipedia article on another but you still have to log the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 February 10. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aubrey de Grey

Thanks for fixing my ref !

I use a notepad doc for those and copy and paste - preview doesnt show the refs and I forgot to check the bottom once i saved

Good work !

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since. Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge tag?

Regarding this edit: Are you sure? While there seems to be some discussion over merging Anti-aging movement into Life extension (that tag is still here), there seems to be little dicsussion over merging Life extension into Anti-aging (which just redirects to Life extension at present). Gabbe (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

spam? unsourced?

Hi, your rationale for this edit is "rvt spam unsourced". Wrong. Give me a proper rationale or I will revert your edit. - Steve3849 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I took a closer look. You reverted all the edits since Sept 9, 2009 as spam. Thats just too easy. My contribution to the article yesterday took a bit more work than a simple revert and it clearly does not fit your rationale. If you revert spam on an article its better to do it as it is happening, not months later when non-spam edits have since been introduced. In this case they should have been edited out. - Steve3849 16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Lastly, I took another look at your edit and I honestly do NOT see spam. {{fact}} tags would be more appropriate, or just the issues template if you are striving to make only easy edits. - Steve3849 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(drive-by comment) The "spam" part is probably where you linked your own page (the Serendipitous Healing website). The "unsourced" part is probably from using the book The Celestine Prophecy: this book is a novel and it is not a reliable source. The lithomancy part looked on-topic and I have restored it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Linked my own page? I put no external links into this article. My edit was a disambiguating wiki link and number of main article tags only ...none of which you replaced. Replacing the the actual spam and not replacing my work... that's cute. Thanks for pointing out the spam. It was done with this edit on December 19, 2009 by User:Serendipity77. I'm curious, what exactly in TW alerted you to a need for a revert after my edit? Drive by? Are you referring to my tone, or your revert? I suppose it applies to both. - Steve3849 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Drive by... I get it now. You are not User:Verbal. Sorry. - Steve3849 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the link was added by another user, sorry for not noticing. Verbal reverted the combined edits of several users. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kary Mullis

Inserting false information into articles is considered vandalism. Mullis does not state anything about human factor in global warming in the source given, unless I missed it on both my watchings of the video (used as the source for the text) and the readthrough of the text which accompanies it, in which case you could provide, as asked in my edit summaries, a time stamp for where this supposed statement comes from. Please do not revert it again as you are inserting false information into the article. Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. It's edit warring and should stop. Please use the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If 3RR doesn't put a stop to it, I would suggest AN/I. There's no excuse for this tendentious behaviour, and this is hardly the user's first bout of it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

FRINGE advice

Found some bald Creation science or more accurately, biblical literalism masquerading as science on the Longevity myths page. I removed some ridiculous OR on worm DNA, but there's still some firmament woo without any qualifications.

This is one of those articles that really shows my cluelessness when it comes to writing. I never know whether to pick up an X-Acto knife or an axe. What's your opinion? Auntie E. (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading more of it, it looks like an axe is in order. If you don't mind, I'm going to bring it to the noticeboard for more eyes. Auntie E. (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I had a quick look and it's hard to follow. I wont have time this evening. Thanks for asking though. I'll check back if I have time later. Verbal chat 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Psychic

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)