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

Timewave Zero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timewave_zero#Summary Can't you see a "clarification needed" tag here? I added a quotation from McKenna providing such clarification. You have promptly reverted it. What is your problem? Please stop your malicious activity.

It doesn't clarify anything and is too big. Propose your edit on the talk page per WP:BURDEN, as asked. Verbal chat 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted my edit?--Systemizer (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Superconducting quantum computing; Folk medicine; Sirloin steak; Charge qubit; Usui Mikao; Skeptic; Duke of Zhou; Banachek; Integrity; Sonopuncture; Immunosuppressant; Health observatory; Metamorphic Technique; Magic; Luo Points; Bhumi; Plum blossom (Chinese medicine); Lacto-ovo vegetarianism; Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

Cleanup: Astrological age; Anecdotal evidence; Cartomancy
Merge: Network marketing; Synchronicity; Scientism
Add Sources: Midheaven; SuicideGirls; Beef tenderloin
Wikify: Trigger point; Paul Fromm; Ufology
Expand: Acupressure; The National Council Against Health Fraud; Gaia philosophy

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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a guideline

I have a vague feeling I've seen something (perhaps a guideline) cited to the effect that the fact that one article treats its subject in a particular way (e.g. in the presentation of criticism/negative evidence) is not per se a reason for another article to treat its subject in the same way. Any idea where it is (if it indeed exists)? I'm lousy at finding policy/guidelines!

Thanks for the barnstar, BTW! Although I often feel that edits I make to other articles are more productive... Brunton (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline of which you speak sounds familiar, but I'm not sure where it is - perhaps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or similar (check the "what links here")? The barnstar is for contributing despite the whole thing being unproductive, rather than anti-productive if no one responded. Verbal chat 11:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediumship

What is it that you would like clarified? The quote is perfectly reasonable, seeing as there is a statement from him that suggests it is not definite proof, so I see nothing wrong with quoting him. And note that it is the 'simplest explanation', my edit is not explicitly stating that there is proof, which I would agree would be wrong. Spritebox (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the article talk. The "simplest explanation" isn't neutral, as it fails WP:FRINGE and the WP:UNDUE section of our WP:NPOV policy. Verbal chat 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking of RetroS1mone

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)[reply]

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, Verbal chat 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. RetroS1mone talk 17:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, Verbal chat 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Verbal's personal attacks

"stop being an ass (animal)" in Verbal's edit summary. I would like you to be reminded, or perhaps informed, that wikipedia has a WP:NPA policy. I know it may be frustrating having to justify your actions, but you should possess the maturity to be able to do so without resorting to such childish behavior.Goramon (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]