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

Too late

The discussion drags on, but it's not appropriate to add any more new voices. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion is a good place to start your journey if you want to look at the controversy. I'm not expecting an answer today.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck - does it help if I say you're better off without :) Verbal chat 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You have been asked repeatedly by a number of people to stop your disruptive and controversial page moves and discuss them first, but have not. Please feel free to appeal this with the {{unblock}} template here. — Jake Wartenberg 17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|If I had been simply asked to stop moving pages back to their consensus titles, and told that if I didn't it would result in a block, I would have. This is not how I interpreted Jake's previous first warning. If he had made it clear then I would not have continued. I still feel my reverts to original naming is justified, yet I will no longer make any such moves. I will post any that I feel are controversial or should be reverted here and on WT:OUTLINE, and continue discussion on various talk pages. As such, I ask that this block be revoked. Thank you.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

As you have agreed to stop the moves, I no longer see any reason for the block. Sorry if I failed to communicate effectively before. Thanks!

Request handled by: — Jake Wartenberg 19:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

(cross posted from Jake's talk, so replies and any drama can occur here)Thank you for the unblock. I didn't want to mess up your talk page as another forum for this dispute, so I didn't directly address the misrepresentations made here (TT has already accused me of libelling him). I'll still attempt avoid doing this, suffice to say that I disagree with the statements made above. Returning to the point, I had already promised not to make any moves from articles originally named as outlines to lists, and will now cease moving lists back to list naming conventions, but make others aware at appropriate pages (such appropriate projects, for example the mathematics project, where a consensus against outlines is developing/has developed, and WT:OUTLINE). Thank you for your time, and apologies for your being dragged into this. Note that ANI had already approved the moving back of pages, and other admins had assisted me in deleting redirects to enable moves. Some may dispute my version of events, I expect that, but that is where I was working from. To be clear, I'm sure you acted in good faith. I'll copy this to my talk page, and ask others to post any replies there. An RfC on the topic is apparently in preparation. Yours, Verbal chat 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you drop me a note if you see that RfC go up before I do? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me two. I expect that Jake will do justice by also blocking TT for starting all of this with his mass moves without any consensus or discussion at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And me, small groups of editors declaring policy without adequate engagement will do the Wikipedia no good. --Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

⬅You might want to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy --Snowded ^TALK 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems an unrelated discussion about a subset of these articles has started here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Louisiana history. Verbal chat 20:59, 19 October 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: Term (mathematics); Sect; Sirloin steak; Sonopuncture; Folk medicine; Therapy; Usui Mikao; Mutual UFO Network; Integrity; Metamorphic Technique; Atopy; Coma; Hamiltonian group; Silver cord; Lacto-ovo vegetarianism; Plum blossom (Chinese medicine); Star height problem; Characterology; Medical history

Cleanup: House dust mite; Congruence relation; Magnet therapy
Merge: Scientism; Combinatory logic; Junk science
Add Sources: San Jiao; Tensor product of fields; Charaka
Wikify: Trigger point; Ufology; Packing problem
Expand: Traditional Korean medicine; Acupressure; Horoscope

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) 05:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human disguise and human suit

Hi there, not that I object to that article being a redirect but you blanked my speedy deletion nom... I hope that won't lead to future problems. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so, as I' not an admin and didn't review it, I think it can just be put back. Copying the content is a copyvio anyway. Verbal chat 20:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Child of Midnight just reverted anyway. Wait until admin rules on the speedy before changing back to a redirect, ok? Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an admin already declined as the other page hasn't been deleted yet. Verbal chat 20:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that... the holdon request may have caused a pause. Give it an hour or two and we should know for sure. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop following me

There are several editors working on this with me. We are having a discussion and we plan to fix it. Your habit of following me (or any other editor) around contra WP:STALKING and contra WP:HARASSMENT is not ever going to help wikipedia. It's ludicrous (that's why there are these policies and guidelines for you not to behave in this manner). Please stop. Thank you. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to contribute by the originator of that policy proposal, and I clearly have an interest in the guideline. Please stop thinking everyone who disagrees with you is harassing you. Verbal chat 04:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Join the EI brigade squad.

User:Hipocrite/EI

I thought it would be about mexican food :) Verbal chat 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline RfC help request

Apparently I'm writing this (I thought other people were, maybe they are?). Anyone have any ideas on how to do this, examples, help, etc? Should it be workshopped on a subpage? ?? I'm away for at least 4 hours now though. Thanks. Verbal chat 13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to? As there are some strong opinions, I'd recommend a group effort to make it as neutral as possible and we don't expose commentators to recent heated discussion. I'm assuming that the RfC is to cover outlines existence and procedure for their application rather than recent editing behaviour (which would get messy). Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually came to your talk page to ask who was drafting the RfC so that I could help. I recommend we start drafting in a subpage of WT:Outlines - it will need to be looked at by both opposers and proponents to ensure that it is as neutral as possible. Alternatively, we could start one in a subpage of your userspace (or mine) and then move to a subpage of WT:Outlines when we've gotten the basics worked out. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done one of these but I would be willing to try to help out though. Maybe I can help with difs since in the past few days I've mostly been reading from one page to another. I also agree that this should be about whether outlines should exist or set up a procedure. Let me know if I can be of help and please do leave me a dif or you can do it here. I'ld like to watch at the minimum so I can see it being done. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far too tired to think about this now (2 hours giving lectures, 6 hours on broken and striking trains). My idea would be that I and others helped coordinate, that it would be neutral and take input from various viewpoints, and would be presented in a neutral space. I'm not convinced the outline project is that space. I believe someone else is writing a RFCU on TT, and I don't have a problem with that, but that isn't what I envisage the focus of this will be. Anyway, I'm very very tired. PS: I'd much rather not do this, but this does need resolving. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started the last proposal for a new namespace in 2007, and have had many criticisms of the outline project since it started. I'd be exhaustedly willing to start a draft for an RfC on at least one of the issues from Wikipedia_talk:Outlines#Points, presumably on namespace initially. (?)

I'll be away for a few hours, but will start re-collating links and sentences this evening. I'll let everyone know both here and elsewhere when I do, if that sounds amenable. (I asked Dbachmann for a preliminary clarification at User talk:Dbachmann#More on Outlines this morning. If anyone here would like to comment on that question (or anything), that'd be great (reply at my talkpage perhaps, to avoid overwhelming Verbal or Dbachmann). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for TT, I started the last and only RfC/U on him too (April 2006, but please let's not dredge up the distant past), so please don't think I'll be playing favourites! I agree that he needed a cooldown block today, after his 2way pagemoves.

User:Bhtpbank has stated a few times that he is collecting evidence for an RfC/U. If that does occur, I hope that it can be kept entirely separate from any RfC we start about content/outlines/navigation. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this is put together I think this should be put in. It doesn't seem correct to me plus it needs to be changed if outlines do or do not get a consensus. This is linked to the Contents on the sidebar of each page so I thought it should be brought to others attentions in case it was missed. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: You have a lot of nerve / mistake

You knew[1][2][3] all along that Outline of water was originally created as such but you still play along and say it was originally created as list of water topics when Hans makes a faulty claim. -- penubag (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple nudge/reminder would have sufficed. I have corrected my mistake, but feel it is in no way deserving of the personal attack here. Make any more personal attacks and you may well be blocked. Please stay civil and calm - there is no need to get excited. Verbal chat 10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was every reason for me to assume that you were taking advantage of this mistake, as the Outline of Water talkpage is covered with this fact and you've been participating in this discussion since you made the first page move. But, I'll assume good faith here and apologize for this assumption if you will be more careful in the future. -- penubag (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to assume bad faith. Since I'd several times stated it was originally an outline, isn't it more likely that the addition of the word "original" was a mistake? It would be silly as it would be obviously picked up by others, and both Hans and I have corrected our mistakes as soon as we were made aware (others haven't corrected their misrepresentations, I notice). If it hadn't already been (correctly) removed I would have removed the tag myself when I went to correct the error. Please feel free to apologise and strike your comments on Jake's talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already retracted all my comments before your reply above. Please tell me if I've missed any. -- penubag (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I likewise. I've renamed the section, I hope you don't mind. Verbal chat 10:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I hope this stupid dispute can be resolved immediately. I'll say sorry again if it wasn't immediately recognized ; I realize I was in error (nevermind my edit summary on Jake's page).-- penubag (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the edit summary. Thanks for the above. There is also a comment on User talk:WJBscribe which I feel is a bit strong - perhaps you could make it a bit less personal? I realise I have complained about TT, but I feel that is justified. I do want to separate the TT issue from the outline issue, but TT has made that difficult! Nevertheless, we must try. As I've said I'd like to work with everyone to make an RfC on outlines (of limited scope), but I'm busy today and tomorrow. Best, Verbal chat 10:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it reads better now. Thanks again! -- penubag (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Verbal, I am afraid I misled you with my comment. Sorry for that. Obviously I will try to be more careful in the future. Hans Adler 11:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Denialism

Where is the text you removed in this edit archived? -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I thought it had been archived. It needn't be, but I'll move it to the archive. Thanks. Verbal chat 10:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDL disruptive editing against clear consensus

I have raised this here [4] Leaky Caldron 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my editing that is disruptive. Did you attempt to discuss this with me first, following WP:DR? Verbal chat 12:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]