User talk:VeryVerily

Please add new messages at the bottom.

I reserve the right to post replies on this page instead of your user talk page, although I often don't.

Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M

Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak

Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.

;-) -- V V 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KR

User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

your thoughts might be usefull over at Talk:Khmer Rouge PMA 22:47, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I didn't even notice until just now, when I checked the history. Meelar 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rigged"

I like your latest wording best. I hope Meelar agrees. Cecropia 01:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VV, I'm in my own little drama right now and I'd rather not step into the middle of another one. Sorry. RickK

lousy English

I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!

If your work on Continuation War wasn't enough (and frankly, that very article is far from ready with respect to factual content and NPOV, imho), or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))

/Tuomas 08:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grammer fix

I don't mind the Grammer fix, as a matter of fact I encourge you to fix my grammer because I have a habit of typing fast. Thanks Comarde Nick

compliments

I wanted to compliment you on your civility, something which should be standard on the wiki, but in practice is rare enough to earn my compliments. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation re: Indo-European

The article says "The Basque language is unusual in that it does not appear to be related to any known languages." Why do you insist in inserting "living"? Basque does not appear to be related to any known languages, period. It is of course true, that if we go back two or three thousand years, there may be languages to which Basque would then seem to be related, but we don't have any remains of such languages and hence "living" is unnecessary, as Basque does not appear to be related to any dead languages either. Vice 21:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See "aquitanian" at [1]. V V 21:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point - I was unaware of that. Perhaps then you should include a short reference to Aquitanian in the sentence? Vice 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see the point. It's just an offhand reference in a list of non-IE languages in Europe, a bit of a tangent. Deeper details belong in the Basque article, which the reader seeking further information can click on. V V 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfA Nonsense

Thank you for the kind words on RfA. I'm not going to dignify the attacks with a response, but I appreciate that you stepped up to speak.

If you're curious: I first became active during the Quickpoll saga. I grew interested in the administrative workings -- but I saw that people tended to vandalize each other's pet articles, so I decided it would be wise to maintain separate accounts for contributing versus talking. The community has affirmed this practice on numerous occasions, so I feel I'm on solid ground -- and I use my real name and valid email for voting and controversial discussions, so I daresay I've got a better claim to legitimacy than certain other users.

As I said, I won't dignify the personal attacks on RfA, because they're irrelevant to the merits of the nomination. But thanks again for stepping to my defense. I noticed it, and I do appreciate it. Cribcage 17:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

...for fighting the good fight against Shorne/Hanpuk/whateverhisnameistoday. I just saw his long diatribe on RfM...*sigh* I don't know how you do it. It's nice that there's some people willing to continually take on this nutjob in order to stop all our articles on the subject from being trashed. Ambi 10:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne

I'm afraid Shorne is not going to stop. Shall we open a discussion about user conduct in Wikipedia:Request for comment ? What do you think? Boraczek 13:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you should go right ahead. Shorne 13:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily, I hope you can participate productively in this RfC and the associated Mediation. I think it will do us all some good. I have in the past sometimes edited without providing adequate references, perhaps you have too, but Shorne has essentially no other way, and accords no respect to references provided by others. Fred Bauder 13:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

What Kafkaesque poppycock! Shorne 14:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Shorne is Hancuk who was in between. Shorne's first edit was September 25; Hanpuk's last edit was May 7. Fred Bauder 15:29, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC). User:GayCommunist seems unlikely, see his user contributions: [2].

Still looking for reds under the beds, are you? There could only be one person in the world with any opinions different from yours? Shorne 23:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment Shorne

A few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:49, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

DIALOGUE?!? Are you kidding? I've made all the steps in the direction of negotiation. You're completely off the beam if you think that this stubborn VeryVerily has any intention of engaging in dialogue.

By the way, go ahead with your silly RfC. I welcome the opportunity. I shall also quote this passage to show what you're up to. Shorne 23:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the ongoing dispute with Shorne generally, but with regard to the one article I've seen, Human rights in the United States, is there anything actually wrong with the paragraph:

The US has also detained US citizens without charges, as most recently in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who in September 2004 was also compelled to forfeit his US citizenship. While the Bush administration claimed that such treatment was justified for an "enemy combatant," critics regarded it as a violation of Hamdi's civil rights. In addition, the US routinely detains non-citizens, who do not enjoy the same legal protections.

This is all true, is it not? Evercat 12:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dead end road

I have recused myself from the arbitration cases which affect you due to your jumping in to help with the disputes I have been involved with user Shorne. It is nice to have more than 3 reverts, but to be more than a POV warrior you have to be willing to do research and cite sources which support the information you feel needs to be included in an article. I fear you are focusing too much on reverting as some kind of an all purpose weapon, when, in fact, it is frowned on by Wikipedia policy, and ultimately grounds for a ban. I wish you would slow down and reconsider your attitude and focus more on basic research and citing of credible references than on reverting edits on the basis of point of view. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerily

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Serving notice

I have filed a request for arbitration against user VeryVerily at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

Do conduct yourself accordingly.

Shorne 10:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

cc: Ruy Lopez

Welcome to the vast "right wing conspiracy" VV. Want some similar fun, come check out ACORN. Wgfinley 14:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

fair enough

sorry bout the deletions... I was making the sections into pages of their own, keeping the text the same. Just thought it would be easier to navigate if "history of anarchism" wasn't the same page as "anarchy" and "schools of thought"

as it says at the top, "This article is 75 kb long, (and it really does seem kinda long to me)

actually the more I think about it.

Actually the more I think about it, that page really should be condensed. It is incredibly hard to navigate, and while I really don't have any problem with the deinitions held within, I think it really should get organized a bit.

okay... I'll stop there, I'll just make "anarchy" (which really isn't the same thing as anarchism, and deserves to be an outside link in my opinion) and "history of anarchism" separate links.

if you don't like it you won't hurt my feelings.

I have no problem with the content, it is just very difficult to navigate as it has expanded to quite a tall page. Sliding that scrollbar a half inch, in my opinion should not whizz by 5 screensfull of text.

Rest assured, I am not deleting, just organizing.

Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies : Neutrality

This section was added by Chalst and should not be construed as being endorsed by me.

Ah, indeed, I should have said so myself. But since the matter is aired, what do you think of what I wrote? ---- Charles Stewart 07:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'm not sure it counts as an underlying value difference that results in conflicts. Very Verily 07:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PNAC, blah blah blah

I know the survey is pretty pointless, but I don't think you're helping yourself much by adding in the "beating your wife" bit.

What's your gripe about the prior version with this?

From my perspective, it read like something Rex would have come up with in his day - a paragraph based on something sensible, but then twisted around to imply silly things. That PNAC have tried to take advantage of 9/11 is a common accusation, and should be represented in the article. But that current section is either deliberately implying sinister things, or very badly worded. In any case, I've been talking with Bryan on IRC, and I'm curious as to what your exact concerns are. Ambi 09:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion?

I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on my last comment in the discussion that started under the header "Your tools for preventing edit wars..." Do you plan on responding? GuloGuloGulo 05:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've had my hands full. Very Verily 05:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that means that you will respond eventually; I hope so. GuloGuloGulo 05:50, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I just did. Very Verily 06:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit War with Shorne

Last night I just so happen take a look at the United States article and noted it was protected! I seen this edit summary made by Shorne: (cur) (last) 19:44, 12 Oct 2004 Shorne (Not to worry. VeryVerily is just being an asshole, as always. See the talk page.) From my perceptive that is a personal attack, may I suggest doing a Request for Comment?--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 05:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ohh, ok I'll check out the Arb. requests, if you have and problems just contact me on my talk. :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 06:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

9/11 attacks

Than if terrorism mentioned in article than that's ok, perhaps I'll reword it a little to reflect npov--198 00:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes your correct you convinced me. Also I find it most interesting that the article about the plane not hitting the pentagon was on the french wiki ;)--198 01:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

I am requesting arbitration regarding your refusal to follow the three revert rule. --Michael Snow 05:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An appeal to reason

Please raise your dispute with my version of the Karl Marx article on the article's talk page rather than reverting like a vandal. I have accomodated all your initial complaints; you, on the other hand, make no effort to work towards consensus, preferring to simply revert instead. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi! If you would like to protest against the reverting rule, try your luck at the Village pump. And if you would like me to appoint you again for administrator, please prove that you can change your behavior, unless you'd rather not be one. Marcus2 14:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am once again asking you to explain yourself, VV. Both 172 and Boraczek have contributed to building a better version of the Karl Marx article, and Boraczek in particular is known as an outspoken anti-communist. What excuse can you possibly have now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

172's last edit was to revert Boraczek. I don't see anything being "worked out". Very Verily 22:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact that no further editing occured until you returned can be seen as a pretty good sign that things had indeed been worked out. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or maybe no further editing would have occured till Boraczek returned? Really, what kind of reasoning is this? Very Verily 22:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine, believe whatever you want, the point is that we have a dispute to solve, and you haven't been exactly very helpful. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"attacks"

from Wikipedia:Protected page

September 11, 2001 attacks—revert war over use of the word "terrorist", 198 and VV vs. Gzornenplatz. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I had no role in this edit war. I'm sick of Mirv's attacks on me. VeryVerily 11:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - How is it an attack when I state, truthfully, that you were involved in the edit war? Please explain. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - You are correct that I engaged in one revert, which I had forgotten. Whether a single edit constitutes "edit warring" is I suppose a matter of opinion. I think it does not. Very Verily 00:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's ~~three~~ fifteen reverts in one day, VV. It's not a matter of opinion anymore; you're engaging in an edit war. Please stop. If you have a disagreement, the grown-up way to deal with it is to discuss it on the talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

No use trying to reason with VV: for more information see here.

You are an asshole.

Yes, you. You are an asshole. Bds yahoo 00:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Human Genome Project - in the news

You are obviously correct, the math section in my brain is currently undergoing maintenance ;) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please end the edit war with Shorne on "South Korea"

Please keep the "editing dispute" tag until a resolution can be reached on the article`s Talk page. --Ce garcon 10:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:South Korea. Very Verily 10:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

vandalism

I'm not astounded, but I choose to engage the issues on the level of content. And in this case, he seems to be reverting me, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

213.56.68.29

Hello! Who is 213.56.68.29, who reverts History of Modern Greece? Boraczek 08:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule broken at United States

You keep reverting United States to use unnecessarily POV-loaded phrases such as "limits free markets with social welfare", "regulates virtually every industry", "has some of the most liberal laws", "tough laws", etc. Is it really so hard to represent the various PsOV in the article without writing from a blatant POV yourself? I really don't think it is. Please try. I am new to this dispute, but the dispute is not new. It seems that you've got a lot of other people angry about this also, so I probably won't spend as much time on this article as I would otherwise, but I just wanted to try "appealing to reason" with you here before I go revert it again.

I'm sure that having edited as much as you have you're aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, and I hope that your fourth, fifth, and sixth reverts today ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) were just an accident, and that you won't revert my next one (#2 for me) again for at least 24 hours. Because that would be grounds for you getting banned. But even then: please don't revert this again. To paraphrase Jon Stewart on Crossfire, Please, stop. You're hurting America. ~leif ☺ _HELO 11:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you're new to this conflict, you may not know what I'm up against. I'm subject to a guerrilla attack by a user who vandalized by user page several times and is systematically reverting all my edits. Ruy Lopez is a sockpuppet account of a user who has created more than a dozen accounts (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton) and goes on rampages deleting everything he doesn't like. Shorne is a communist POV pusher and stalker who goes on similar rampages. The 3RR is dead letter enforced only against unpopular editors (which may include me). In the case of the United States article, much of what they put in there - such as that French dislike of McDonald's is opposition to "capitalism" - is gibberish (some corrected by others). (Indeed, that whole section is pointless.) I wholly disagree that "limits free markets with social welfare" and "regulates virtually every industry" are POV. See Immigration for discussion of how the US does - as a matter of fact - have some of the most liberal laws. There is also an active discussion at Talk:United States about this. And so on. Join the conversation if you want, but reverting my edits is just plain provocative. Very Verily 11:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I really don't care about who the other people reverting against you are. All I can see is that your version in this particular dispute uses unnecessary adjectives to convey your POV, and you have reverted it seven times in less than 24 hours. To describe a body of law as "liberal" is often questionable in itself, but to say "some of the most liberal in the world" is just unnecessary. Why not stick to facts about the laws instead of your opinions of them? You write Wikipedia articles like you're writing an editorial, and you need to stop doing that. I am not going to revert this article a 3rd time right now, because edit wars are harmful and I'm sure you'll just revert again anyhow. Hopefully administrative action will be taken soon to halt your crazy reversion rampage. ~leif ☺ _HELO 12:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think liberal has a specific and clear meaning in this context. If it said lax instead would you be happier? An encylopedia entry not about immigration but mentioning it should give a brief and accurate synopsis of the facts, which means it can't be loaded up with descriptions of, e.g., the laws passed in 1965, but should summarize the relevant details (in this case that the U.S. accepts unequalled immigration). And there are more substantive issues you're skipping over in that whole rotten section, put in by these problem users (who should not continue to be coddled). I have been writing here a long time and know the editorial policies pretty well. And as for your last bonne chance, well, you just may get your wish. Very Verily 12:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't the article to go into details about immigration law in, but that doesn't mean the single sentence summary has to state your analysis as the facts. Instead you could make indiputable claims that leave the door open for other view points... Like, "The United States has more relaxed immigration laws than many other countries, having granted X immigrants citizenship in 2003". That leaves room for someone else to make a counter statement like "critics have claimed that their immigration laws are not very lax however, because so and so (other facts)". Obviously I'm not going to be writing this section; I'm just trying to show you what I mean by writing about different POVs from an NPOV. If your current statement that the US has "some of the most liberal laws on immigration" is allowed to stay, that really doesn't leave much room for other POVs there, does it?

I'm really still astonished that a seasoned editor like yourself has the audacity to suggest that 7 reverts in a row is acceptable, and that the "3RR" somehow doesn't or shouldn't apply to this dispute. It's my opinion that you should be banned from editing until you agree to follow this simple policy. ~leif ☺ _HELO 13:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know under what standard it would be suggested that the U.S. laws are not some of the most (pretty weasely) liberal in the world, so I disagree about POV (critics may think they're not liberal enough anyway, but that's another matter). The 3RR, despite its name, is a guideline, not a rule. It was not enforced against users who were reverting me back when we (even) had quickpolls, and it's not enforced against vandals now, who are allowed to run wild. I support multiple reverts against "subvandalism", stalkers, and users who should be banned. (See some of the comments Shorne got early on from various editors.) Your opinion is duly noted; it is fortunate for the sake of the project that you aren't in a position to force your will on me. Very Verily 13:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Leif. VeryVerily is very much mistaken in his view that the policy against numerous reversions in not enforced or that he is not subject to NPOV editing requirements. We have here an editor who could, if he moderated his behavior a bit, be a productive editor. As it stands now, he will soon be banned leaving the field to Shorne and Ruy Lopez. Fred Bauder 13:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)