User talk:Verbal/Old01: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:12, 14 July 2009

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

Graph isomorphism problem

You wrote "Reverted 1 edit by Tim32; Rvt disruption. Establish consensus please. (TW)" this is false! There was not consensus that any alternative approach is not possible! Aslo you should not remove Refimprovesect tag! As well as my messages from this your talk page! Sometime ago you said me "sorry" for similar actions (see, my talk page)!--Tim32 (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no agreement for the edits you are making. I'm beginning to think you should be topic banned. Verbal chat 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Tim, I've never apologised for my actions involving you - indeed I have nothing to apologise for. Except, perhaps, I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Verbal chat 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm beginning to think you should be topic banned, because you reverted all my different edits without discussion -- it looks like vandalism. Some time ago you said some words about me, and apologised for it (see my talk page). Now you said COI about me without any reason.--Tim32 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. Verbal chat 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nobody can understand absurd reasons :( --Tim32 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go down the road of making personal attacks again. My previous comment ("I think you've misunderstood what I wrote") refers to the fact that I have not apologised to you for my actions, which have all been proper. Your CoI is documented and known, and your disruption to those articles has been noted. Verbal chat 11:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is personal attack? Is "absurd reasons" personal attack?--Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote here "I have not apologised to you for my actions", but following cited from my talk page:

I fixed the link some time ago. Verbal chat 20:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! But did not find where I where I had written "racist"? Cite, please! --Tim32 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] This discussion isn't good for the project, so I suggest we stop it. I note now that you said Rasism not racist. Verbal chat 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Does it mean that your alerts was your mistake, and now you are sorry for this?--Tim32 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry you are upset. Verbal chat 08:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote here: "Your CoI is documented" -- Where had been documented my so-called "COI"?--Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote here: "your disruption to those articles has been noted" -- Yes, this so-called "disruption" was noted by you, for example. But you should prove this disruption. From my side I also noted your disruption to those articles. And I proved it, unlike you.--Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the apology, I'm sorry when anyone is upset, it's always something I would wish to avoid. However, I am not sorry for my actions, which were caused by you, only that they upset you. If you didn't make accusations of racism etc they wouldn't be needed. Verbal chat 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like word play only, but "call a spade a spade" ;) Also, I see you have nothing to say about my so-called "COI" and your disruption to those articles. You did not answer my questions.--Tim32 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know the answers, if not read through the talk page and archives at Graph isomorphism problem. You have a WP:COI and have been the subject of WP:WQA reports for your disruption. No more here please. Verbal chat 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simone

Pls consider the fact that all sources come form her offcial web site and major Newspaper. You reverted without consider the new sources. Jackiestud (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You undid much good editing, and restore much material against BLP policy. You must cease this behaviour and engage on the talk page or you will be blocked again. See the article talk and your own talk page. You cannot simply revert to the previous version and add a few sources that do not address all the issues. Please do not comment here about this again, use the article talk page. Verbal chat 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION:Legal action

I advice you not to continue. My lwayer was noticed and you damaging her image ina very srious way, damaging without knowing her work. Jackiestud (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I better take this to WP:ANI. See WP:NLT. I notified EdJohnston. Verbal chat 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user has been indef blocked for these and other threats. Verbal chat 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112

Don't waste your time hoping that he'll behave better when his actions are called out. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :) I thought I was very civil, so I don't understand the wp:pot reference! Verbal chat 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He meant WP:POT. I've found meta:What is a troll? describes how to best address this behavior. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the pot/kettle thing (but I didn't know we had a WP-space page on it), I just don't think it works as I was very nice. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your sig

Your current sig:

[[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]]
w/the wrong spelling of “gray” could be achieved with:
[[User:Verbal|Verbal]] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]]

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling was a copy-paste I should have noticed :) I was working on fixing this when you posted... Verbal chat 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whole story please

It is fine that you deleted what I had written to Shot Info but why did you not delete what he wrote? Did you give him a warning for simply attacking me?

By the way, I do think my comments about pseudoscience and frontier subjects is on topic and will be discussed more and more in the real world as people seek to find alternative approaches. What I am saying is that despite Shot's crack at me, I was trying to make an appropriate comment.

Please delete Shot Info's comment and I wil go away. Tom Butler (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SI didn't link to an attack site that outs wikipedia editors, itself a violation of our policies. I have collapsed his comment, however it was a reply to another off topic comment that I have placed in a collapse box. Do not restore your comments as this will violate several policies. If you have a problem with this take it to ANI, though realise your behaviour will come under scrutiny. Verbal chat 19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I do not have time to escalate this, but please be aware that all you are allowing someone to attack me yet you have no proof that I am acting in bad faith. I attempted to keep my reply on topic. There are articles in Wikipedia which I consider attack articles yet I do not say you are an attacker ... or are you?

All you are doing is confirming my sense that this wiki is biased-- inside and out. Tom Butler (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to an attack site which outs existing editors. Your comments were off topic - wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote your ideas or peddle your websites. If you have nothing to add to the project, then maybe one of the other sites you suggest will be more to your liking. I'm not interested, and over the last few days I've dealt with worse than you can come up with. Please consider this conversation over, I have nothing further to say. Verbal chat 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please do not remove messages I have left to another user, see Tom Butler's talk page. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not vandalise the page, and do not make personal attacks WP:NPA. Verbal chat 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to spot a personal attack 217.44.114.146 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse. Verbal chat 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you accuse me of personal attacks then the burden of proof is on you, until you supply said proof, please don't make accusations. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP's edit to someone else's talk page removed here also [1]. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackiestud

Given the IP's other edit, I'm assuming this is a dynamic IP. It's her, of course. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the English. I am (reasonably I hope) eloquent and fluent, whereas this other user seems to use it as a second language, seeing as her user page states that she is from Brazil. I merely asked that my (non-abusive) comments are left untampered. This is a shared IP, so I have no objections whatsoever to you removing the edits to MBisanz's user page. But please, leave my messages be and don't accuse me of personal attacks. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different section, and a different IP address. Nothing to do with you. I suggest you stay off of other people's talk pages if you have nothing constructive to say. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I mistook it for being directed at me (as you added to the section above for no apparent reason). And given my confusion, it was constructive as it was a defense. Thank you 217.44.114.146 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug. Verbal chat 12:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was this edit I was thinking of: ][2]. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the edit I was thinking of per WP:NPA, and the edit summaries to Tom's page are at the least WP:UNCIVIL. Hopefully (on the topic of this thread) JS will stay away or at least behave. Verbal chat 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I apologise if my summaries seemed uncivil, I was just a bit annoyed at the time. 217.44.114.146 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#William M. Connolley (2nd) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Abd (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe that you've scored some sort of victory here Abd, but wikipedia doesn't work like that - it's not a battleground despite some peoples attempts. I don't really see why I've been added, but it's not important. I've done nothing wrong, unlike one person in particular. They made this bed though, and they're going to have to lie in it. The only thing I object to is the short circuiting of the community. If arbcom felt your behaviour would end up before them anyway then they should have been honest about it. I'm sure you'll agree that their accept reasons are rather lame - I could accuse WMC of being involved when he blocked me for editwarring, and by their reasoning they'd have to accept the case. I'm just sorry you don't realise quite how self destructive you've become. Verbal chat 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should realize if you have tracked my contributions that I take no pleasure in dragging anyone before a noticeboard, much less RfAr. Your argument about recusal, however, is one that has been raised many times before ArbComm and rejected. Any admin action taken after a cause for recusal, which would include, for example, an editor calling an admin's arguments a "steaming pile of crap," in one actual case, is action while involved. There are procedures for such administrators to follow, and not following those procedures, while it sometimes saves time, also causes widespread and often hidden damage, due to the appearance of bias in how Wikipedia administrators function. It's a crucial issue, more important than Cold fusion to me, and even more important than my personal editing future, which is limited in any case.

It's plain as day why ArbComm accepted the case, and if you don't understand why, it's because you decided long ago to discount what I say. There is a faction which has been calling for me to be banned for months, originally aroused to do so because of my calling of JzG on his failure to recuse. That faction is not Wikipedia and a ban supported by that faction is not a "consensus of uninvolved editors" as required by WP:BAN. Because of the existence of this faction, editors who will pile in when a hot-button issue for them is up, any lower-level community process on these issues is guaranteed to be disruptive, it will either find for a factional position, or it will find no consensus, with a lot of time wasted. ArbComm advised me last time not to pursue fruitless debate, but to escalate more quickly, with prepared evidence. And that is exactly what I did, I did dot the i's and cross the t's, but relatively rapidly. I could have been at ArbComm weeks earlier, but, quite simply, writing a filing that is both concise and penetrating is not a job for something dashed off in a few minutes; maybe with more experience I'll be able to do it. It took a month because it took a month for me to find the time.

Let me be very clear about one narrow point: any admin who insists upon his or her continued right to use tools against an editor, when the editor has claimed involvement, is failing to recuse as required by policy; an exception would be ones where there is a clear community ban established by a consensus of uninvolved editors, as WP:BAN requires, and even then, there is a problem when one admin takes on the task and pursues it with extraordinary zeal, incommensurate with the disruption prevented, as may be happening with the Scibaby case. Or not. I don't know yet.

To anticipate one objection: recusal does not equal "unblock." If an admin has blocked, and the editor cries foul, the admin simply steps back, having made sure that any needed evidence is clear. It's routine. By the time an editor has cried foul with many admins, and has been unable to show impropriety, it's over, that editor will be either informally or formally banned.

As to victory, Victory is mine, saith the Lord. My goal is consensus, and a step along the way is, at least, majority rule. Specialized factions can present an appearance of being the majority, even fooling themselves. I attempt to anticipate true consensus, and that's what I seek. Review what happened with the link to lenr-canr.org at Martin Fleischmann and you will see. It took quite a bit of discussion, but, in the end, consensus prevailed, and remaining dissent was isolated, incidental, outlying, unjustified, and not pursued.

Here is how much I believe in consensus: you think I perceive the acceptance of the RfAr as a victory, and you are correct, and it looks very clean to me. However, acceptance means that my behavior will come under a microscope. If you are correct, I will be subject to some kind of ban or restriction. Wouldn't you think that a good thing? Shouldn't we have complete agreement that acceptance is a good thing? Or are you concerned about your behavior being examined closely? Wouldn't you want to learn if you've been doing something wrong? I do. I make mistakes all the time, anyone does who becomes active. The trick is to learn from them. --Abd (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 : You seem to believe that you've scored some sort of victory here Abd, but wikipedia doesn't work like that - it's not a battleground despite some peoples attempts. I don't really see why I've been added, but it's not important. I've done nothing wrong, unlike one person in particular. They made this bed though, and they're going to have to lie in it. The only thing I object to is the short circuiting of the community. If arbcom felt your behaviour would end up before them anyway then they should have been honest about it. I'm sure you'll agree that their accept reasons are rather lame - I could accuse WMC of being involved when he blocked me for editwarring, and by their reasoning they'd have to accept the case. I'm just sorry you don't realise quite how self destructive you've become. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+::You should realize if you have tracked my contributions that I take no pleasure in dragging anyone before a noticeboard, much less RfAr. Your argument about recusal, however, is one that has been raised many times before ArbComm and rejected. Any admin action taken after a cause for recusal, which would include, for example, an editor calling an admin's arguments a "steaming pile of crap," in one actual case, is action while involved. There are procedures for such administrators to follow, and not following those procedures, while it sometimes saves time, also causes widespread and often hidden damage, due to the appearance of bias in how Wikipedia administrators function. It's a crucial issue, more important than [[Cold fusion]] to me, and even more important than my personal editing future, which is limited in any case.
+::It's plain as day why ArbComm accepted the case, and if you don't understand why, it's because you decided long ago to discount what I say. There is a faction which has been calling for me to be banned for months, originally aroused to do so because of my calling of JzG on his failure to recuse. That faction is not Wikipedia and a ban supported by that faction is not a "consensus of uninvolved editors" as required by [[WP:BAN]]. Because of the existence of this faction, editors who will pile in when a hot-button issue for them is up, any lower-level community process on these issues is guaranteed to be disruptive, it will either find for a factional position, or it will find no consensus, with a lot of time wasted. ArbComm advised me last time not to pursue fruitless debate, but to escalate more quickly, with prepared evidence. And that is exactly what I did, I did dot the i's and cross the t's, but relatively rapidly. I could have been at ArbComm weeks earlier, but, quite simply, writing a filing that is both concise and penetrating is not a job for something dashed off in a few minutes; maybe with more experience I'll be able to do it. It took a month because it took a month for me to find the time.
+::Let me be very clear about one narrow point: any admin who insists upon his or her continued right to use tools against an editor, when the editor has claimed involvement, is failing to recuse as required by policy; an exception would be ones where there is a clear community ban established by a consensus of uninvolved editors, as [[WP:BAN]] requires, and even then, there is a problem when one admin takes on the task and pursues it with extraordinary zeal, incommensurate with the disruption prevented, as may be happening with the Scibaby case. Or not. I don't know yet.
+::To anticipate one objection: recusal does not equal "unblock." If an admin has blocked, and the editor cries foul, the admin simply steps back, having made sure that any needed evidence is clear. It's routine. By the time an editor has cried foul with many admins, and has been unable to show impropriety, it's over, that editor will be either informally or formally banned.
+::As to victory, Victory is mine, saith the Lord. My goal is consensus, and a step along the way is, at least, majority rule. Specialized factions can present an appearance of being the majority, even fooling themselves. I attempt to anticipate true consensus, and that's what I seek. Review what happened with the link to lenr-canr.org at [[Martin Fleischmann]] and you will see. It took quite a bit of discussion, but, in the end, consensus prevailed, and remaining dissent was isolated, incidental, outlying, unjustified, and not pursued.
+::Here is how much I believe in consensus: you think I perceive the acceptance of the RfAr as a victory, and you are correct, and it looks very clean to me. However, acceptance means that my behavior will come under a microscope. If you are correct, I will be subject to some kind of ban or restriction. Wouldn't you think that a good thing? Shouldn't we have complete agreement that acceptance is a good thing? Or are you concerned about your behavior being examined closely? Wouldn't you want to learn if you've been doing something wrong? I do. I make mistakes all the time, anyone does who becomes active. The trick is to learn from them. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)