User talk:Verbal/Old01
no archives yet (create) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
18 November 2024 |
No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
Berwyn Mountain UFO Incident
Thanks for helping stamp on the self-advertising of the Conwy UFO group which they keep adding to this entry. I have reverted it several times, and it must now come under the 3RR. What do you think we should do if they put it in again? Can we have them blocked, as I have warned? If so, how? Skeptic2 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
humour
Verbal, re "I am British and I find the lack of a sense of proportion and humour offensive. Sheesh.". Sorry if you were offended, as I certainly meant no offence. If the woad issue is a touchy one (and I wasn't aware that it was), I'll refrain from using it. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- hi, i wasn't offended at all by your comment (well, the homeopathy bit - but that is true thanks to the idiot prince). Sorry I wasn't clear in my overcautious complaint about llm. I think injecting humour is important, and huge overreactions like the complaint made show a bad faith on the complainants part. Verbal chat 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Verbal, I was a bit concerned that I'd stumbled across some line that I'd not been aware of. Homeopathy is just something I don't think is of any benefit, but if others wish to use it, it doesn't much matter to me. (And a secret that must never get out (especially to OM): my wife bought a homeopathic solution for ear pain and she said it worked. I'm thinking it was the topical analgesic that was in it, but it did make her feel better).
- Re woad, I could point to so many strange actions by my Norse and German ancestors that would make Druid rituals seem tame by comparison.
- I'm afraid I just don't get LLM. Oh well, as Kurt Vonnegut noted, "so it goes". Cheers! •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
Hi, Thanks for the welcome. I have made a couple of edits on the CFS page I know, I hope I am not being too forward with my comments and edits. But I think I will back off that page for a while it seems to be a bit controversial at present. Anyway thanks for the welcome. Best wishes InBreed good rude (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to take a look at the article Nazi occultism?
I am not leaving the project after all, although I am still highly critical about it. What made me consider the issue at Discrimination against atheists so offensive was the whole deletionist attitude of several editors (and admins): I've spent hours writing a balanced account of the Rob Sherman controversy, the whole question of whether Bush senior actually said that atheists shouldn't be considered as citizens. The material was originally in the Persecutions by Christians article, then in Separation of church and state in the United States, then in Discrimination against atheists and now it has hopefully come to rest at Robert I. Sherman. But the problem is - if I hadn't merged the material there myself it would have been deleted and the hours I've worked on it would have been wasted. What does Wikipedia expect from its editors? To continually watch over their contributions for all eternity? It weren't new editors or vandals who deleted valid content - it were experienced editors and administrators in a rather heated debate. I can only see that they have never reflected about their attitude. This is not an encyclopaedia, but a battleground, in despise of a guideline that says otherwise: wp:not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. But would it be better if I left? I am still undecided about that. However, I certainly can't stand it when rather some people, who might not even be able to notice the difference between James Herbert and Hans Mommsen, criticise my work, see the recent discussion about Nazi occultism. I actually would like to know what you think about that. Zara1709 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I'll have a look soon but I'm a bit distracted by real life right now. However, I don't know much about Nazi occultism apart from the popular conception - which I think is probably a myth (or exaggerated). All the best, Verbal chat 15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with
WP:CONSENSUS policy. Thank you. 212.200.240.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC).
- Please stop being a WP:DICK. You will be blocked if you continue like this. Verbal chat 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Advice needed
Hello Verbal. Last August you tagged a certain editor's user page with the identity of one of his alternate accounts. The original account is not blocked, and the guy removed this comment from his page. Currently at ANI there is a guy posting rather silly things (not abusive, yet) that seems to be the same editor. (Civility complaint for being called a 'sucker'). There is no major problem, besides avoidance of scrutiny, and wasting space on admin noticeboards. In your opinion, is it time to file a case at WP:SPI, or not? EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOMORE
A discussion was still taking place regarding the fate of this page. I'm reverting your move until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Please participate in that discussion rather than ignoring it and performing the action of your choice. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:00, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion has taken place several times and the consensus has always been the same. Verbal chat 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let it take place one more time. You don't decide when enough is enough. Besides which you haven't done much discussing yourself aside from a couple of one-liners. If you feel strongly enough to enact your position, you should also be willing to defend it in a discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:04, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have ownership issues. Verbal chat 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that is easier than actually responding to my statements, yeah. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:10, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion has taken place several times. You are in the minority and haven't raised any new or compelling issues. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that is easier than actually responding to my statements, yeah. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:10, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have ownership issues. Verbal chat 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let it take place one more time. You don't decide when enough is enough. Besides which you haven't done much discussing yourself aside from a couple of one-liners. If you feel strongly enough to enact your position, you should also be willing to defend it in a discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:04, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)