Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Verbal (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 30 October 2009 (→Dbachmann's note: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Neal's Yard Remedies

Hi Verbal. I'm concerned that you have reverted the edits made by Horticus to this article. The edits were backed by verifiable citations, and were not (unlike the edit I reverted on that page a few weeks back) removing any of the criticisms. Given that that's the case, I can't see any reason why those edits shouldn't have been allowed to stand, nor why the editor who added them should feel that they need to discuss them on the talk page before adding them. This seems to go a little against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and is likely to put off new contributors. But I'd be interested to hear your views. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Verbal - following from the comments from OpenToppedBus keen to understand why you reverted the edits to the Neal's Yard entry? I am new to Misplaced Pages and this was my first entry. Lots more I want to add but want to get it right, hoping you can help. Horticus (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time I seem to remember thinking they were spammy references, but that clearly isn't true. The only thing I'd ask you to do is to work it into prose rather than have it as the list format. Probably had too many firefox tabs open. Apologies, and best of luck. Verbal chat 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, is it Ok to re-submit the changes or best to edit first? Would an intro and then a list be better? Also seem to be having problems getting the references to link properly, any tips on the correct tagging for this? Horticus (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input on the edits that I reinstated Horticus (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hertfordshire

We've had an interesting intervention from Hertfordshire this morning! It would be interesting for him to document what he disagrees with! ;) Leaky Caldron 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL opening

I have reverted to the consensus first sentence. I was thinking that the next section is getting too big. I know you have reverted Spylab's changes, but do you agree that History could now be separated from Current activities, given the additional material now in there? Any further EDL activities will make that section even bigger and I think the History is worthy of it's own Heading. Leaky Caldron 11:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs discussion. I will review your changes. Verbal chat 11:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you message. This is the only lead restoring edit I needed to make yesterday and it didn't involve removing any other material . If you can find the one that concerns you let me know. I always try to make important changes clear in the edit summary.

I am always careful about which issues I support. I tend to consider the issue rather than the editor and I think I've put my support of Ctp.'s approach to the NPOV board in a neutral way. There may be systemic bias reporting - there may not be. Let's just agree that not everything reported in the press is well researched. Do I personally think that they are far right? I certainly think that they are influenced and have a classic far right approach in their activities. But it is not for me to make that an encyclopaedic fact any more than it is for you or anyone else. I am not backing away from the consensus in supporting an approach for fresh eyes. Leaky Caldron 10:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the edit - it didn't just change the lead. I didn't notice the other changes, as going on the ES I thought you had only changed the lead.Verbal chat 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Scunthorpe motorsports typo

It most certainly was a typo, but I hope you can see the funny side! Thanks for correcting it. Tom Green (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Verbal chat 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Passage Meditation article

You added a "npov" tag to this article; the tag says "see discussion on talk page" but I can find no comments added by you to either the talk page of PM or to my talk page or to your talk page explaining why you think the tag is justified. Where should I look for this discussion? Would you please explain why you think the tag is justified, and give me an opportunity to correct whatever you think is wrong.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

te tag is justified by the misleading wording and incorrect use of research studies, as discussed on the article talk. Verbal chat 10:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

can you please be more specific? What is misleading? And I'm not sure also why you say the research studies have been incorrectly used - the research has taken place, is documented, and is relevant - and the debate about the research in the talk page does not seem to me to have concluded that the research is incorrect. I'm happy to make improvements to my additions but can't see why your assertion of NPOV is justified - of course I am interested in Passage Meditation otherwise i would not be providing material for an article - but I've tried to be unbiased and factual in what I've written. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Verbal, Since you've not yet responded may I add something to my quick note above? I don't think it's reasonable for you to put a "npov" tag on the article when HealthResearcher has posted on the discussion page the question asking how the current version of the research section may lack NPOV given that they represent findings from peer-reviewed studies, and he/she knows of know other studies that conflict with those findings, and no-one has yet responded. Is it not more correct to try to reach consensus on the discussion page, rather than your placing a NPOV tag (which is very prominent in the article) - a tag which does not yet reflect the outcome of the discussion. I hope we can reach agreement on this smoothly - the article was originally (and probably correctly) criticised for being a bit skimpy, and inevitably as material is added it may give rise to discussion, which we all benefit from if we can then end up with a more complete and accurate article. Thanks, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your use of FTN

You appear to be canvassing again. you also do not appear to be paying that much attention to the edits you've actually made. I would ask you to redact. Artw (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be incorrect, again. Verbal chat 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not my battle but...

Anthropomorphism might cover some of that Human disguise debate. Just a thought.... Leaky Caldron 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann's note

Hi. I was wondering if you could let Dbachmann answer in his own words, in that thread, before you answer? (I fully respect your own opinion/views, and would welcome them there later, but I'm trying to get some feedback from him there, or a very specific point, which I'd like to get his views on.  :) Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Me giving my answer in no way precludes him giving his. If you want a private conversation, try email. I've already answered; I can't fulfil your request for that reason. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)