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

Contents 1 AfD nomination of Denialism 2 Please follow the BRD cycle 3 Inaccurately describing my edits to stormfront as POV edits 4 Signpost? 5 English defence league 6 Message 7 EVP

[edit] AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

[edit] Please follow the BRD cycle

Hi Verbal, as an experienced Wikipedian you demanded strict adherence to the rules in our earlier exchanges. As you know there is a discussing going on about the Aspartame_controversy, so going forward and making edits like this without making an effort to add to the discussion and reach a consensus does not appear to be appropriate behaviour?

[edit] Inaccurately describing my edits to stormfront as POV edits

I don't even support stormfront so please don't revert my edits to support your pov, they don't even alter the POV of the article simply correct errors in citations and request a citation about a political party candidate supposedly associated with them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.159 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report for Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] English defence league

Hi verbal. The english defence league site is utterly devoid of a neutral point of view.It is clearly an attack piece.How can it be flagged as such ? Guardian reader (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The article, as far as I can tell, accurately represents the mainstream view (from press, politicians, groups and other and WP:RS) of this political group. It seems to comply with WP:NPOV. I do not see any evidence that it is an attack piece. Verbal chat 16:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Messages for you on Leonora Piper discussion page.Kazuba (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

I rolled back your removal of the "Phone calls from the dead" section. It was sourced, and seemed to be written in an NPOV tone, not giving undue weight or anything. I'd just like to see on the talk page there what the justification was, in the spirit of not losing knowledge from WP. Maybe the section could be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is not reliable per WP:RS. Verbal chat 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I copied/pasted this onto the talk page of the article. Let's continue there, and not clutter your talk page with article discussion :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)