What followed next was very bizarre behavior. The remainder of this paragraph will reference this snapshot: . Strangely, he acknowledged the veracity of the quote while continuing to defend his removal of it. (There are technical reasons why the quote is necessary; it connects morphic resonance to telepathy while avoiding the word “paranormal” which Sheldrake eschews.) His writing was garbled and I had much difficulty trying to understand it. He ferociously argued that the TED blog http://blog.ted.com was a reliable secondary source and a reliable news organization! I was astonished. – vzaak
There was no bizarre behavior. Manul is casting an aspersion. Anyone can check the diffs from that time above in Vzaak’s references. All Vzaak is doing is taking an editorial discussion on Wikipedia over sources, and actually trying to use an editorial discussion as evidence that I was a troll.
All Vzaak is doing is taking links that point to talk pages I participated in and labeling them as ‘garbled’ or ‘disruptive’ to the admins – another shell game.
Clearly, there is nothing ‘garbled’ about them and hardly worth being ‘astonished’ over.
Vzaak, my concern is that you use WP a little too strictly to enforce what appears to me to be a loose opinion or interpretation, when in fact WP is clear when it is meant as a guide or heuristic instead of a policy for deletion. From (WP:PRIMARY) “Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.” As long as we keep a firm commitment to maintain a NPOV, these issues should be easy to resolve since these are quite rational distinctions. I look forward to working with you on this page over time to maintain this standard. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Does that sound like an unreasonable response? Personal Attack? Trolling? Bizarre? Does it sound like I am being disruptive? Of course not. If any of Vzaak’s links they are using as evidence are actually looked at – there is nothing in them that can distinguish them as anything other than editorial disagreements being discussed between editors.