←Archive 7 ( 301 - 350) | Khukri's talk archive 8 (351 - 400). Please do not modify | Archive 9 ( 401 - 450)→ |
You deleted the entry for Ed Boyd. He was the 2006 Green Party candidate for Governor as well as the first African American to run for Governor in the General election in Maryland. Please reverse this deletion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.138.49 ( talk) 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
a week or two ago, someone told me that should be good to write an article on 3DzzD (a product I began a cupple of years ago); I did so, it was deleted because if I well understand it seems to be a wikipedia rule to not write an article on something you are involved in, so this man have rewrite it by himself, than viewing it I made some modifications on some incorrect or missing informations.
Ps: I like wikipedia and often use it to find informations, I also understand that wikipedia have some basic rules but I really dont understand why modifing informations on my own product is not allowed ?
Basically is there anyway to have the following article back to two or tree days ago (before I made modification on it) or may I need to ask the man to rewrite it from scratch ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DzzD/
Regards
DzzD ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont agree with the fact that it is not a notable API... or that it is an other bunch of source code... I am unfortunatly a bad merchant... but would be great if you could made some search on it, in 2004 3DzzD was a kind of experience/prototype and I dont really know why but since 2005 3DzzD has slowly become a reallity in the Web3D world without any financial support, some of its features have been closly "hired" by major Web3D compagny as the software/hardware rendering support, more fun is that some compagny have paid to use DzzD as an adwords..., unfortunatly this product is not owned by a compagny that spent money on advertisment and so public dont know a lot about it, only people with web 3d (and its history) knowledge can notice that.
some examples are that a product (wich is in wikipedia) an wich is maybe the leader in no-plugin web3d tools for some years, mention that they will support opengl a cupple of weeks after I announce that 3DzzD will in an interview given by a french 3d web site.
If you look to the following web site: http://www.3dlinks.com/links.cfm?categoryid=1&subcategoryid=3&order=dateadded, you will also notice that they added a product only 4 days after I added 3DzzD, strange isn't it ? as this product is very old and wordly known, you may also google for "web 3d engine" or "Web 3D API" and see that google doesn't think that it is not a notable Web 3D API. I may also provide screenshot that show compagny using this name as an adword (removed now as I complain again this).
anyways your the boss and that your decision...
DzzD ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You said some members of the scientific community have concerns about the safety of the LHC. How many would you say have concerns? And how concerned are they? Thanks.
69.181.38.64 ( talk) 07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
Thank you for your message. I got useful information about using Wikipedia (being a new comer I appreciate your advice). About "a neutral informative article which must be based on (and I repeat again) verifiable sources and not point of view", I have nothing against, but just want to bring to your attention that I did not touched the LHC article, only the "discussion" page which I consider OK for discussing points of view. It's true that I'm not a nuclear scientist, but still I can read whole articles related to nuclear physics (I admit, I don't bother checking the formulas:) ) without getting bored and I pretty much get the idea behind.
Best regards, LF1975. LF1975 ( talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'll appreciate your work on the CERN article ! { Sheliak ( talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)}
(Sorry about the very long title :D) It appears that Ryan is on an enforced wikibreak until 20:00 (UTC) on the 25/1/08. Best, Rudget . 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I already wrote about it in the LHC discussion page, but since it might go unnoticed by relevant people I would like to reiterate here the following:
I wonder if anyone takes in consideration the direction of the colliding beams relative to the sun. I guess nobody wants to send any strange thing that might be created straight into it. This might happen if the collision takes place around the east-west direction at around 09 6 o’clock in the morning or afternoon or 15 21:00 o’clock. I think that the direction of the colliding beams should be south-north so that in case something nasty is created its trajectory will be (practically) perpendicular to the solar system plane. Is this a reasonable thing to ask from CERN or not?
I know that it might not be possible to reposition the detectors already in place, but could CERN fix the time of the collision accordingly, at least?
Best regards, LF1975 -- LF1975 ( talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
I just never had a chance to thank you for your intervention in the Singh article. Sincerely thank you.
Harrybabbar is busy on the talk page giving "his version of the world" but I am keeping an eye to see when he will start with his POVs and vandalism again. I have tried to explain to him that Wikipedia is not for POVs or political agendas, its a huge project for collecting and sharing knowledge. Maybe after he has run out of accusations and insults he may just come to his senses, hopefully.
Well, I sincerely thank you for your help and I hope I won't have to come running to you about this again. And happy belated New Year, sincerely all the best. And I didn't think you were a Gurkha, but with the name Khukri, how could I resist from contacting you?
Sincerely,
Gorkhali ( talk) 07:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No activity for 2 weeks? What edit did I just revert then? The name being an obvious impersonation of the account it's being used to harass isn't reason to block either? Did you happen to look at the history of the page? Please replace the report and let someone who feels like taking the time to look into it take care of it. Please consider taking another look at this instead of dismissing the report so quickly. --
Onorem♠
Dil
13:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I did not see a reason for vandal block, but the NPA ephitets used were kinda nasty. A short block should show him that this behavior is not warranted, nor acceptable. Thanks for the wishes (though you scratched that too! LOL) -- Alexf( Talk/ Contribs) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this was speedied despite being on Constellation Records...could you please userfy it so I can see about referencing and restoring it? Thanks Chubbles ( talk) 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I am writing to inform you of your grossly mismanaged and ill informed deletion of the band "Sofa"'s page. Evidently you know next to nothing of indie rock or its history. It is people such as yourself which seriously degrade and devalue the veracity and "open" nature of the wikipedia spirit.
As for your demands for notability - any 2 minute google search will turn up all the criteria that is needed to meet the "notable" tag. The first such red flag should have been noted by yourself that it is the only entry from the Constellation records catalogue that has been deleted from wikipedia. This alone should have given you pause, but I assume you neither know the label, it's place in recent independent rock history, or even the fact that the band in question was the first to appear on that storied label, home to such major international acts as Godspeed you black emperor and a silver mt. zion, and that its guitarist is one half of the founders of the label and now plays in a silver mt. zion, whom have played with everyone from Cat Power to Patti Smith (whom i assume you may have heard of, if you have not deleted her page as well). Sofa has appeared on compilations in magazines and cst comp's that have sold tens of thousands of copies, have garnered an international fanbase in the ten years since their demise and are still cited and played on college radio stations around the world. Just the fact that they are the premier release on one of the biggest indie rock labels in the world should suffice to be alloted an entry.
I have to agree with the comment left to you by the user "trialsanderrors", "This is a complete nonsense response. If the user asks for userfication so they can fix the problems of the original article we fulfill their request unless there is an overriding reason not to." - It is a nice summation of your wholly mismanaged reasoning - i have seen your other edits and it is incredible that you could deign to intervene in matters where you are obviously out of your league, and have no other information to back up your decision than a personal whim which is baseless.
Next time I would suggest leaving deletions to persons whom have a modicum of experience and are not blindly wielding the staff of enlightenment like a cudgel, simply because they can. I will be reporting this matter to the admins, and keeping a close eye on your future unilateral deletions...
-Sentinal9 (sorry, i had not signed it the first time)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinal9 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Blimey, I'd forgotten all about this little project. I attached a few things to my user draft which should help the page splutter back into existence. Chubbles ( talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if my comments pissed you off. But at DRV we have worked pretty hard to get speedy deletions restored quickly without implicating the deleting admins if there is a reasonable claim that community discussion is needed (see the discussion at WT:DRV. Speedy deletion can be an annoying task, and oftentimes an admin can reasonably assume that deletion is uncontroversial when it turns out later that it's not. In most case it's better just to restore and send to AfD to show the requester that deletion is not just one person's opinion. Of course AfD is also a forum for fact finding, and at times articles that look worthless come out as feasible articles if they attract the attention of a committed editor. Take care, trialsanderrors ( talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Obviously, he really needs to learn a lesson, as he has continued to post vandalisms and create hoax pages. I shall be reporting this user to WP:AIV. Thanks~ Starczamora ( talk) 09:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at User:Dudeduckdick, seems to be a sock of User:Gerald Gonzales. -- Howard the Duck 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hehe! Thanks XD delldot talk 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved here for continuity
I've removed your CSD tag on User:BQZip01/Comments, as it was previously a subject of an MfD here and though circumstances may have changed, it cannot be speedied and must go through the full deletion process. Any further questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khu kri 08:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the AIV report on 75.1.251.159 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Even though not all the edits from this IP are clear vandalism, SummerThunder is a banned user and has no right to edit this site, vandalism or no vandalism. And even though strict adherence to the letter of process would require a report at WP:SSP and not AIV, SSP is far too slow to stop his characteristic rapid-fire edits and personal attacks, so those of us fighting SummerThunder have relied on AIV instead. szyslak 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for clearing the speedy - when I placed the tag, there were no references cited, so hopefully placing the tag at least did some good! - Fritzpoll ( talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Could you please unprotect Chapel of Sacred Mirrors, I would like to start an article on it. Could you also please tell me why it is protected? Kind regards, Jason7825 ( talk) 09:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked 118.137.0.0/17 for a week due to the massive amounts of vandlism only edits coming from that range (for example, on the article Sunrise (company)). As you've blocked several of the IPs in this range, I thought you'd want to know. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Given the edits since ( [1], [2]), it appears that I screwed up with my addition to this article. My intention was to add properly sourced and cited technical details that were not otherwise included in the article, however it appears that I inadvertently Americanized the article. When making the addition, it occurred to me that I was using "American English" descriptive terms ("half as long as a basketball court" and "weighing over 30 tons"), however I did not know how to get around that since the source was written in American English and I wanted to properly cite these highly specific details. While I considered using metric terms ("greater than 14 m by 7 m" and "weighing over 27 tonnes"), I was afraid of running afoul of either WP:SYN or WP:OR, especially since those were not the terms used by the source. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. Could you review User talk:Kralizec!#Your block of 151.49.52.138 and give me you unvarnished opinion on the propriety of my block? Thanks, Kralizec! ( talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Recommend protecting the Talk page. Enigma msg! 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Khukri ... it looks like 66.244.202.65 ( talk · contribs) did not learn from their one month block, and they have returned to vandalize Wikipedia again ... since you are the admin who blocked them the last time, I'm bringing it to your attention ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 ( talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a strange AfD related to a user you were involved in an indefinite block with. User:ELLIOT_PRIOR's user page is mistakenly at the AfD space here [3] and I'd appreciate if you took a look at it and the accusations. Personally it looks legit, but it's outside of normal AfD land... so any help would be appreciated.-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slon in Sadež. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eleassar my talk 14:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, as long as i on. :) -- Aleen f1 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, no further comms. I don't think he's done much article writing, so will get some opposition for that, but looks a good candidate. Would like to look into his AfD contribs before I commit. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I'd be happy to accept a co-nomination from you guys some time in the future. Just out of curiosity, what kind of "mass tagging" gets into your watchlist? Is it the disambiguation stuff? Because I don't get much feedback on my editing, and I'm always wondering if I'm flooding people's watchlists with all those repetitive AWB edits. I haven't had any complaints so far, so I guess it can't be too annoying, heh. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a discussion on the Maitreya talk page ( see here). You see the major problem is User:Thamarih is so completely biased to the Bahai religion that they have been been blocked at least three times for disruptive edits and comments on articles either containing information pertaining to or are about the faith itself. They have even filed false sockpuppet reports on wikipedia editors who adhere to Bahai. I am not a proponent of the faith myself, I only care that the material on Maitreya is relevant and fully cited. In the end, I think any kind of mediation will be futile. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what's up, and why the rude edit-summary "Do not revert this"? Can we discuss before we make changes, please? My point is, that 95% of this user's edits are being reverted. He's ignored four warnings (not an indication of good faith - paying attention to them would lead to him learning the rules here); we need to get him to stop, and rather than blocking, a comment could also be effective. What's your suggestion for getting him to stop the bad behaviour? — TreasuryTag— t— c 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying this in defence of TreasuryTag: Doctor Who is one of the, if not the most rumoured about show in British television because of its prestige (it was the second most viewed show for the whole of 2007). You get these rumours all the time - hardly a week goes by without The Sun publishing another exclusive. As a result, most of us, including Edokter (an admin) have started to RBI any sources that aren't:
Now, I realise there's a 90% chance that Cribbins will appear in 4.12/4.13, but with the cast being deliberately kept secret, we've nothing to go on, and we don't deal in "90%s" with living people. Sceptre ( talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind replying on my talk page? Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Messages again. On my talk page, of course :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied to your comment on AIV talk Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Saw you blocked for 24 hours. On review he's made about three good edits and then all others where blatant attacks. Call me harsh, but I'd be inclined to indef. Saves us any problems at the sam etime tomorrow! Pedro : Chat 12:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that there was quite a discussion at ANI last night regarding some attacks on me and I was curious what happened? I mean, I've never been a celebrity before. ;) Just curious. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't do IRC either. Let me see what I can do. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok:
/msg nickserv register [password]
And you're done! Malinaccier ( talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for the lovely barnstar, it feels nice to be recognized for your work sometimes. But know that it was not just me and a few other users that contributed to hopefully saving a life but you as well and for that I must give you a pat on the back: "good job". Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you redirect LHC to Large Hadron Collider? The proposal was discussed at Talk:LHC (disambiguation), with a result of no move. Flibirigit ( talk) 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. On the Large Hadron Collider page, I noticed you reverted a sentence to say that Argonne has the largest particle accelerator until the LHC turns on. Is this true? I thought the Tevatron at Fermilab was the highest energy collider in the world. Am I missing something? Thanks. PSimeon ( talk) 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering, are the types of things that go on there as incredible as Dan Brown makes them to be? A-Whack ( talk) 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri, I am getting mildly bothered by JTankers on the LHC talk page. He has been persistently pushing the "dangers!" POV, and I am beginning to realize he is deeply involved in the movement to stop it (see LHCFacts.org, which he apparently runs). His physics is not reliable (I'm in over my head on this subject also, but several of his claims have been borderline absurd, IMHO), and Monday he put up a post with references that simply do not support his claims, to the point that I fear they are really not very honest. I started to write a reply to this latest post, but after some snooping around in the references I am beginning to feel it is hopeless. The whole post is just a verbatim copy of a post, by Tankers, to yet another blog.
So I am thinking that there needs to be some firm closure on the topic, re the LHC article, with a brief outline of the concerns in the article, CERN's answers, and if that is not enough then a link to a separate article on the issue (which I think is likely warranted, and would be willing to help watch to keep it from becoming a snake pit of people's unsupported nightmares). What I am not willing to see is the present article develop a social tail that wags the physics dog.
Can you advise me how to go about this? If I request an agreement to keep the discussion on-topic on the talk page, based on the recent contributors, I think I might be over-ruled, as I seem to be holding the fort alone at the moment, aside from a few people who just come in and out, rolling their eyes about the whole thing. There are certainly other knowledgeable people around, possibly watching. I imagine you as an administrator should not do anything, being a CERN person, due to COI. (I was in elementary particles back in the 1960s as a grad student, so I am surely somewhat biased myself.) It does make it a wee bit difficult, not being quite certain about the physics. One hates to be a curmudgeon of course, but responsibility for demolishing the Earth is a step beyond where I ordinarily go.
I'm looking at WP:DR as I write, so I suppose I need to systematically work my way through that, or maybe just lie low and cool off for a bit before I develop a fortress mentality.
Anyhow, let me know if you have suggestions.
Thanks
Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess I appreciate your constraints, and mostly worry about being out of bounds myself. I dropped a note to User:Dark_Formal just now, introducing myself. In any case, I think we are OK. As you say, Jtankers is not altogether unreasonable, and I have some empathy for his situation. I'd be freaked if I thought there was any reasonable chance of a disaster, 1:50,000,000 is already worrisome enough to me, but how can I be certain to that level?!. Agggh! Let me know if you have advice re my posts. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:WPUW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 07:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess you have seen that the safety discussion has been moved to Safety of the Large Hadron Collider. This is sooner than you suggested, but I hope it is OK. In my opinion the issue here is unlikely to affect the court case either way, since the briefs filed should contain all the information on both sides, and really as a matter of principle, it should not affect it. Hope our friend JTankers is not bent out of shape. Wwheaton ( talk) 22:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Khukri, just want to ask a question in relation to the User warning templates which i see you have done a great job in but on the page here under hoax there is a stray </noinclude>, i dont really know why it is like this, can you check it out. Its been on my mind for a while and i know its been like this on the page since you added it and it isn't harming anyone but i was curious thats all. Can't really see why it appears on the page. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ( talk) 12:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A discussion on Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please note that Jtankers has readded the Helfer and Belinski papers to the article in violation of WP:ATT. I have tried really hard to explain to him why this is inappropriate and I have asked him to remove the sources. He has not. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just posted the following to the COI board, as a comment on Jtanker's complaint:
"I believe WP:COI is not at stake here, as Jtankers says User:Khukri has reclused himself from acting as an administrator, and I believe has been scrupulous in adhering to Wikipedia policies in his edits. There is indeed an incipient edit war brewing, over the issues of reliable sourcing, and synthesis, so some other form of WP:DR seems likely to be needed soon. See the article talk page for the details. But I think WP:COI is not the issue. Also, note that User:Jtankers contribution history shows that he has edited essentially exclusively on the LHC safety issue since arriving in January 2008. I believe he is also webmaster of the LHC Facts web site, which is an anti-LHC advocacy site, so he may have a COI problem himself. Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)"
James after all this time, I would have hoped you'd realised I'm not questioning you or your beliefs. Yes I have no bones about saying I think you are wrong, but as I've said from day one, what you think and what I think in the end is irrelevant with respect to the article. The only things that can go in the article is clear cut, no leaps of logic or joining the dots. You feel affronted by the fact that CERN can say a large majority of scientist believe in Hawking radiation. That is their right as the article is about their safety report. What YOU cannot do is prove it wrong, it has to be that Dr X proves that CERN is wrong and come out and put their science up for peer review. The CERN paper has been published and has been reviewed, what you need to find is someone who will publish a report put it up for review that CERN's science is faulty because. Not you saying it, not Oldnoah/Wagner saying it but someone published. The Roessler article (and I call it an article as it certainly isn't a paper) hasn't been reviewed, the two links on Hawking radiation although they are reviewed papers they find against Hawking radiation they don't find against the science in the CERN paper.
I've spent 7 months trying to herd your thought processes to that of Wikipedia. Though it is an encyclopedia anyone can edit there are a plethora of guidelines and rules to which information must adhere. I've tried to help you but you just don't seem to want to listen. You ask me to show respect for the "Opposition" as you put it, I think that's an inflammatory term, but I lost respect when you tried to besmirch my name and reputation. I've spent 4 year contributing to wikipedia and never had anyone with such blatant disregards to the truth question my motives. Now you've played the persecuted card for too long, about how all these evil editors are out to get you and suppress your message to humanity. Yet you tried to do that to me, and I do not except it. There are alot of editors trying to point out to you the logical fallacies in your thinking and how the information your presenting does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Not that you are incorrect, not that your cause is wrong, just that it is not the correct way of doing things. There have been a number of editors over the months pointing out how things should be done, Wwheton, Darkformal, Mark Chovain, Scenz, HaeB, Phenl....., to name but a few. As far as I'm aware none of them work at CERN. Yet you and Oldnoah (and lets not beat about the bush it's not like there isn't a massive COI issue there with respect to the lawsuit), automatically assume that WE are all wrong or have some secret agenda. When it is blatant that it is yourself and others who have the huge conflict of interest with regards to your websites and lawsuits. I work at CERN and have never hidden this fact, if I stopped contributing or made myself absent from this article, if I believed I had a COI, how many others are out there that would carry on pointing out your errors. However if you and Oldnoah stopped having to edit due to your COI how many would be adding this material then?
There are no sides, there is no right or wrong, there is just what is acceptable sources to be added to Wikipedia. If you will not listen to the myriad of editors pointing you in the right direction, then I believe you should look closer to home than cry foul with me. "There is no arguing with one who denies first principles" - Latin proverb Khu kri 15:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri, could you delete this page per this and this? Many thanks! -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 10:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri, I would like to bring this and this to your attention. If the affidavits are invalid (if they do not correspond to the ones provided to the court), this may be prejudicial to the plaintifs and misleading to readers. I think both links should be removed right now, while we look for an official reliable source for the affidavits. Thanks for help on this matter. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hallo Khukri, you have deleted Achse de Guten once. I think itshould be reestablished. Its a sort of network of (mainly liberatarian) authors including e,g, Henryk M. Broder, Dirk Maxeiner, Michael Miersch, Hannes Stein, Cora Stephan and various others, scientists and professional journalists. The webblog informs about their activities ivarious media and is establishing as well a sort of opinoion network. The blog has a hitrate of more than 50.000 visitors per month and is mentioned in the german acknowledged media.
It has various connections and parallels to Spiked (magazine) in the UK.
I have updated some of the german entries and if you provide me the deleted entry, i will update it accordingly. Thanks for a feed back and best regards -- Polentario ( talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
←Archive 7 ( 301 - 350) | Khukri's talk archive 8 (351 - 400). Please do not modify | Archive 9 ( 401 - 450)→ |
You deleted the entry for Ed Boyd. He was the 2006 Green Party candidate for Governor as well as the first African American to run for Governor in the General election in Maryland. Please reverse this deletion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.138.49 ( talk) 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
a week or two ago, someone told me that should be good to write an article on 3DzzD (a product I began a cupple of years ago); I did so, it was deleted because if I well understand it seems to be a wikipedia rule to not write an article on something you are involved in, so this man have rewrite it by himself, than viewing it I made some modifications on some incorrect or missing informations.
Ps: I like wikipedia and often use it to find informations, I also understand that wikipedia have some basic rules but I really dont understand why modifing informations on my own product is not allowed ?
Basically is there anyway to have the following article back to two or tree days ago (before I made modification on it) or may I need to ask the man to rewrite it from scratch ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DzzD/
Regards
DzzD ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont agree with the fact that it is not a notable API... or that it is an other bunch of source code... I am unfortunatly a bad merchant... but would be great if you could made some search on it, in 2004 3DzzD was a kind of experience/prototype and I dont really know why but since 2005 3DzzD has slowly become a reallity in the Web3D world without any financial support, some of its features have been closly "hired" by major Web3D compagny as the software/hardware rendering support, more fun is that some compagny have paid to use DzzD as an adwords..., unfortunatly this product is not owned by a compagny that spent money on advertisment and so public dont know a lot about it, only people with web 3d (and its history) knowledge can notice that.
some examples are that a product (wich is in wikipedia) an wich is maybe the leader in no-plugin web3d tools for some years, mention that they will support opengl a cupple of weeks after I announce that 3DzzD will in an interview given by a french 3d web site.
If you look to the following web site: http://www.3dlinks.com/links.cfm?categoryid=1&subcategoryid=3&order=dateadded, you will also notice that they added a product only 4 days after I added 3DzzD, strange isn't it ? as this product is very old and wordly known, you may also google for "web 3d engine" or "Web 3D API" and see that google doesn't think that it is not a notable Web 3D API. I may also provide screenshot that show compagny using this name as an adword (removed now as I complain again this).
anyways your the boss and that your decision...
DzzD ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You said some members of the scientific community have concerns about the safety of the LHC. How many would you say have concerns? And how concerned are they? Thanks.
69.181.38.64 ( talk) 07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
Thank you for your message. I got useful information about using Wikipedia (being a new comer I appreciate your advice). About "a neutral informative article which must be based on (and I repeat again) verifiable sources and not point of view", I have nothing against, but just want to bring to your attention that I did not touched the LHC article, only the "discussion" page which I consider OK for discussing points of view. It's true that I'm not a nuclear scientist, but still I can read whole articles related to nuclear physics (I admit, I don't bother checking the formulas:) ) without getting bored and I pretty much get the idea behind.
Best regards, LF1975. LF1975 ( talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'll appreciate your work on the CERN article ! { Sheliak ( talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)}
(Sorry about the very long title :D) It appears that Ryan is on an enforced wikibreak until 20:00 (UTC) on the 25/1/08. Best, Rudget . 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I already wrote about it in the LHC discussion page, but since it might go unnoticed by relevant people I would like to reiterate here the following:
I wonder if anyone takes in consideration the direction of the colliding beams relative to the sun. I guess nobody wants to send any strange thing that might be created straight into it. This might happen if the collision takes place around the east-west direction at around 09 6 o’clock in the morning or afternoon or 15 21:00 o’clock. I think that the direction of the colliding beams should be south-north so that in case something nasty is created its trajectory will be (practically) perpendicular to the solar system plane. Is this a reasonable thing to ask from CERN or not?
I know that it might not be possible to reposition the detectors already in place, but could CERN fix the time of the collision accordingly, at least?
Best regards, LF1975 -- LF1975 ( talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
I just never had a chance to thank you for your intervention in the Singh article. Sincerely thank you.
Harrybabbar is busy on the talk page giving "his version of the world" but I am keeping an eye to see when he will start with his POVs and vandalism again. I have tried to explain to him that Wikipedia is not for POVs or political agendas, its a huge project for collecting and sharing knowledge. Maybe after he has run out of accusations and insults he may just come to his senses, hopefully.
Well, I sincerely thank you for your help and I hope I won't have to come running to you about this again. And happy belated New Year, sincerely all the best. And I didn't think you were a Gurkha, but with the name Khukri, how could I resist from contacting you?
Sincerely,
Gorkhali ( talk) 07:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No activity for 2 weeks? What edit did I just revert then? The name being an obvious impersonation of the account it's being used to harass isn't reason to block either? Did you happen to look at the history of the page? Please replace the report and let someone who feels like taking the time to look into it take care of it. Please consider taking another look at this instead of dismissing the report so quickly. --
Onorem♠
Dil
13:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I did not see a reason for vandal block, but the NPA ephitets used were kinda nasty. A short block should show him that this behavior is not warranted, nor acceptable. Thanks for the wishes (though you scratched that too! LOL) -- Alexf( Talk/ Contribs) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this was speedied despite being on Constellation Records...could you please userfy it so I can see about referencing and restoring it? Thanks Chubbles ( talk) 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I am writing to inform you of your grossly mismanaged and ill informed deletion of the band "Sofa"'s page. Evidently you know next to nothing of indie rock or its history. It is people such as yourself which seriously degrade and devalue the veracity and "open" nature of the wikipedia spirit.
As for your demands for notability - any 2 minute google search will turn up all the criteria that is needed to meet the "notable" tag. The first such red flag should have been noted by yourself that it is the only entry from the Constellation records catalogue that has been deleted from wikipedia. This alone should have given you pause, but I assume you neither know the label, it's place in recent independent rock history, or even the fact that the band in question was the first to appear on that storied label, home to such major international acts as Godspeed you black emperor and a silver mt. zion, and that its guitarist is one half of the founders of the label and now plays in a silver mt. zion, whom have played with everyone from Cat Power to Patti Smith (whom i assume you may have heard of, if you have not deleted her page as well). Sofa has appeared on compilations in magazines and cst comp's that have sold tens of thousands of copies, have garnered an international fanbase in the ten years since their demise and are still cited and played on college radio stations around the world. Just the fact that they are the premier release on one of the biggest indie rock labels in the world should suffice to be alloted an entry.
I have to agree with the comment left to you by the user "trialsanderrors", "This is a complete nonsense response. If the user asks for userfication so they can fix the problems of the original article we fulfill their request unless there is an overriding reason not to." - It is a nice summation of your wholly mismanaged reasoning - i have seen your other edits and it is incredible that you could deign to intervene in matters where you are obviously out of your league, and have no other information to back up your decision than a personal whim which is baseless.
Next time I would suggest leaving deletions to persons whom have a modicum of experience and are not blindly wielding the staff of enlightenment like a cudgel, simply because they can. I will be reporting this matter to the admins, and keeping a close eye on your future unilateral deletions...
-Sentinal9 (sorry, i had not signed it the first time)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinal9 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Blimey, I'd forgotten all about this little project. I attached a few things to my user draft which should help the page splutter back into existence. Chubbles ( talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if my comments pissed you off. But at DRV we have worked pretty hard to get speedy deletions restored quickly without implicating the deleting admins if there is a reasonable claim that community discussion is needed (see the discussion at WT:DRV. Speedy deletion can be an annoying task, and oftentimes an admin can reasonably assume that deletion is uncontroversial when it turns out later that it's not. In most case it's better just to restore and send to AfD to show the requester that deletion is not just one person's opinion. Of course AfD is also a forum for fact finding, and at times articles that look worthless come out as feasible articles if they attract the attention of a committed editor. Take care, trialsanderrors ( talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Obviously, he really needs to learn a lesson, as he has continued to post vandalisms and create hoax pages. I shall be reporting this user to WP:AIV. Thanks~ Starczamora ( talk) 09:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at User:Dudeduckdick, seems to be a sock of User:Gerald Gonzales. -- Howard the Duck 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hehe! Thanks XD delldot talk 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved here for continuity
I've removed your CSD tag on User:BQZip01/Comments, as it was previously a subject of an MfD here and though circumstances may have changed, it cannot be speedied and must go through the full deletion process. Any further questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khu kri 08:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the AIV report on 75.1.251.159 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Even though not all the edits from this IP are clear vandalism, SummerThunder is a banned user and has no right to edit this site, vandalism or no vandalism. And even though strict adherence to the letter of process would require a report at WP:SSP and not AIV, SSP is far too slow to stop his characteristic rapid-fire edits and personal attacks, so those of us fighting SummerThunder have relied on AIV instead. szyslak 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for clearing the speedy - when I placed the tag, there were no references cited, so hopefully placing the tag at least did some good! - Fritzpoll ( talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Could you please unprotect Chapel of Sacred Mirrors, I would like to start an article on it. Could you also please tell me why it is protected? Kind regards, Jason7825 ( talk) 09:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked 118.137.0.0/17 for a week due to the massive amounts of vandlism only edits coming from that range (for example, on the article Sunrise (company)). As you've blocked several of the IPs in this range, I thought you'd want to know. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Given the edits since ( [1], [2]), it appears that I screwed up with my addition to this article. My intention was to add properly sourced and cited technical details that were not otherwise included in the article, however it appears that I inadvertently Americanized the article. When making the addition, it occurred to me that I was using "American English" descriptive terms ("half as long as a basketball court" and "weighing over 30 tons"), however I did not know how to get around that since the source was written in American English and I wanted to properly cite these highly specific details. While I considered using metric terms ("greater than 14 m by 7 m" and "weighing over 27 tonnes"), I was afraid of running afoul of either WP:SYN or WP:OR, especially since those were not the terms used by the source. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. Could you review User talk:Kralizec!#Your block of 151.49.52.138 and give me you unvarnished opinion on the propriety of my block? Thanks, Kralizec! ( talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Recommend protecting the Talk page. Enigma msg! 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Khukri ... it looks like 66.244.202.65 ( talk · contribs) did not learn from their one month block, and they have returned to vandalize Wikipedia again ... since you are the admin who blocked them the last time, I'm bringing it to your attention ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 ( talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a strange AfD related to a user you were involved in an indefinite block with. User:ELLIOT_PRIOR's user page is mistakenly at the AfD space here [3] and I'd appreciate if you took a look at it and the accusations. Personally it looks legit, but it's outside of normal AfD land... so any help would be appreciated.-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slon in Sadež. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eleassar my talk 14:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, as long as i on. :) -- Aleen f1 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, no further comms. I don't think he's done much article writing, so will get some opposition for that, but looks a good candidate. Would like to look into his AfD contribs before I commit. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I'd be happy to accept a co-nomination from you guys some time in the future. Just out of curiosity, what kind of "mass tagging" gets into your watchlist? Is it the disambiguation stuff? Because I don't get much feedback on my editing, and I'm always wondering if I'm flooding people's watchlists with all those repetitive AWB edits. I haven't had any complaints so far, so I guess it can't be too annoying, heh. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a discussion on the Maitreya talk page ( see here). You see the major problem is User:Thamarih is so completely biased to the Bahai religion that they have been been blocked at least three times for disruptive edits and comments on articles either containing information pertaining to or are about the faith itself. They have even filed false sockpuppet reports on wikipedia editors who adhere to Bahai. I am not a proponent of the faith myself, I only care that the material on Maitreya is relevant and fully cited. In the end, I think any kind of mediation will be futile. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what's up, and why the rude edit-summary "Do not revert this"? Can we discuss before we make changes, please? My point is, that 95% of this user's edits are being reverted. He's ignored four warnings (not an indication of good faith - paying attention to them would lead to him learning the rules here); we need to get him to stop, and rather than blocking, a comment could also be effective. What's your suggestion for getting him to stop the bad behaviour? — TreasuryTag— t— c 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying this in defence of TreasuryTag: Doctor Who is one of the, if not the most rumoured about show in British television because of its prestige (it was the second most viewed show for the whole of 2007). You get these rumours all the time - hardly a week goes by without The Sun publishing another exclusive. As a result, most of us, including Edokter (an admin) have started to RBI any sources that aren't:
Now, I realise there's a 90% chance that Cribbins will appear in 4.12/4.13, but with the cast being deliberately kept secret, we've nothing to go on, and we don't deal in "90%s" with living people. Sceptre ( talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind replying on my talk page? Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Messages again. On my talk page, of course :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied to your comment on AIV talk Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Saw you blocked for 24 hours. On review he's made about three good edits and then all others where blatant attacks. Call me harsh, but I'd be inclined to indef. Saves us any problems at the sam etime tomorrow! Pedro : Chat 12:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that there was quite a discussion at ANI last night regarding some attacks on me and I was curious what happened? I mean, I've never been a celebrity before. ;) Just curious. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't do IRC either. Let me see what I can do. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok:
/msg nickserv register [password]
And you're done! Malinaccier ( talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for the lovely barnstar, it feels nice to be recognized for your work sometimes. But know that it was not just me and a few other users that contributed to hopefully saving a life but you as well and for that I must give you a pat on the back: "good job". Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you redirect LHC to Large Hadron Collider? The proposal was discussed at Talk:LHC (disambiguation), with a result of no move. Flibirigit ( talk) 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. On the Large Hadron Collider page, I noticed you reverted a sentence to say that Argonne has the largest particle accelerator until the LHC turns on. Is this true? I thought the Tevatron at Fermilab was the highest energy collider in the world. Am I missing something? Thanks. PSimeon ( talk) 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering, are the types of things that go on there as incredible as Dan Brown makes them to be? A-Whack ( talk) 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri, I am getting mildly bothered by JTankers on the LHC talk page. He has been persistently pushing the "dangers!" POV, and I am beginning to realize he is deeply involved in the movement to stop it (see LHCFacts.org, which he apparently runs). His physics is not reliable (I'm in over my head on this subject also, but several of his claims have been borderline absurd, IMHO), and Monday he put up a post with references that simply do not support his claims, to the point that I fear they are really not very honest. I started to write a reply to this latest post, but after some snooping around in the references I am beginning to feel it is hopeless. The whole post is just a verbatim copy of a post, by Tankers, to yet another blog.
So I am thinking that there needs to be some firm closure on the topic, re the LHC article, with a brief outline of the concerns in the article, CERN's answers, and if that is not enough then a link to a separate article on the issue (which I think is likely warranted, and would be willing to help watch to keep it from becoming a snake pit of people's unsupported nightmares). What I am not willing to see is the present article develop a social tail that wags the physics dog.
Can you advise me how to go about this? If I request an agreement to keep the discussion on-topic on the talk page, based on the recent contributors, I think I might be over-ruled, as I seem to be holding the fort alone at the moment, aside from a few people who just come in and out, rolling their eyes about the whole thing. There are certainly other knowledgeable people around, possibly watching. I imagine you as an administrator should not do anything, being a CERN person, due to COI. (I was in elementary particles back in the 1960s as a grad student, so I am surely somewhat biased myself.) It does make it a wee bit difficult, not being quite certain about the physics. One hates to be a curmudgeon of course, but responsibility for demolishing the Earth is a step beyond where I ordinarily go.
I'm looking at WP:DR as I write, so I suppose I need to systematically work my way through that, or maybe just lie low and cool off for a bit before I develop a fortress mentality.
Anyhow, let me know if you have suggestions.
Thanks
Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess I appreciate your constraints, and mostly worry about being out of bounds myself. I dropped a note to User:Dark_Formal just now, introducing myself. In any case, I think we are OK. As you say, Jtankers is not altogether unreasonable, and I have some empathy for his situation. I'd be freaked if I thought there was any reasonable chance of a disaster, 1:50,000,000 is already worrisome enough to me, but how can I be certain to that level?!. Agggh! Let me know if you have advice re my posts. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:WPUW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 07:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess you have seen that the safety discussion has been moved to Safety of the Large Hadron Collider. This is sooner than you suggested, but I hope it is OK. In my opinion the issue here is unlikely to affect the court case either way, since the briefs filed should contain all the information on both sides, and really as a matter of principle, it should not affect it. Hope our friend JTankers is not bent out of shape. Wwheaton ( talk) 22:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Khukri, just want to ask a question in relation to the User warning templates which i see you have done a great job in but on the page here under hoax there is a stray </noinclude>, i dont really know why it is like this, can you check it out. Its been on my mind for a while and i know its been like this on the page since you added it and it isn't harming anyone but i was curious thats all. Can't really see why it appears on the page. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ( talk) 12:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A discussion on Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please note that Jtankers has readded the Helfer and Belinski papers to the article in violation of WP:ATT. I have tried really hard to explain to him why this is inappropriate and I have asked him to remove the sources. He has not. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just posted the following to the COI board, as a comment on Jtanker's complaint:
"I believe WP:COI is not at stake here, as Jtankers says User:Khukri has reclused himself from acting as an administrator, and I believe has been scrupulous in adhering to Wikipedia policies in his edits. There is indeed an incipient edit war brewing, over the issues of reliable sourcing, and synthesis, so some other form of WP:DR seems likely to be needed soon. See the article talk page for the details. But I think WP:COI is not the issue. Also, note that User:Jtankers contribution history shows that he has edited essentially exclusively on the LHC safety issue since arriving in January 2008. I believe he is also webmaster of the LHC Facts web site, which is an anti-LHC advocacy site, so he may have a COI problem himself. Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)"
James after all this time, I would have hoped you'd realised I'm not questioning you or your beliefs. Yes I have no bones about saying I think you are wrong, but as I've said from day one, what you think and what I think in the end is irrelevant with respect to the article. The only things that can go in the article is clear cut, no leaps of logic or joining the dots. You feel affronted by the fact that CERN can say a large majority of scientist believe in Hawking radiation. That is their right as the article is about their safety report. What YOU cannot do is prove it wrong, it has to be that Dr X proves that CERN is wrong and come out and put their science up for peer review. The CERN paper has been published and has been reviewed, what you need to find is someone who will publish a report put it up for review that CERN's science is faulty because. Not you saying it, not Oldnoah/Wagner saying it but someone published. The Roessler article (and I call it an article as it certainly isn't a paper) hasn't been reviewed, the two links on Hawking radiation although they are reviewed papers they find against Hawking radiation they don't find against the science in the CERN paper.
I've spent 7 months trying to herd your thought processes to that of Wikipedia. Though it is an encyclopedia anyone can edit there are a plethora of guidelines and rules to which information must adhere. I've tried to help you but you just don't seem to want to listen. You ask me to show respect for the "Opposition" as you put it, I think that's an inflammatory term, but I lost respect when you tried to besmirch my name and reputation. I've spent 4 year contributing to wikipedia and never had anyone with such blatant disregards to the truth question my motives. Now you've played the persecuted card for too long, about how all these evil editors are out to get you and suppress your message to humanity. Yet you tried to do that to me, and I do not except it. There are alot of editors trying to point out to you the logical fallacies in your thinking and how the information your presenting does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Not that you are incorrect, not that your cause is wrong, just that it is not the correct way of doing things. There have been a number of editors over the months pointing out how things should be done, Wwheton, Darkformal, Mark Chovain, Scenz, HaeB, Phenl....., to name but a few. As far as I'm aware none of them work at CERN. Yet you and Oldnoah (and lets not beat about the bush it's not like there isn't a massive COI issue there with respect to the lawsuit), automatically assume that WE are all wrong or have some secret agenda. When it is blatant that it is yourself and others who have the huge conflict of interest with regards to your websites and lawsuits. I work at CERN and have never hidden this fact, if I stopped contributing or made myself absent from this article, if I believed I had a COI, how many others are out there that would carry on pointing out your errors. However if you and Oldnoah stopped having to edit due to your COI how many would be adding this material then?
There are no sides, there is no right or wrong, there is just what is acceptable sources to be added to Wikipedia. If you will not listen to the myriad of editors pointing you in the right direction, then I believe you should look closer to home than cry foul with me. "There is no arguing with one who denies first principles" - Latin proverb Khu kri 15:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri, could you delete this page per this and this? Many thanks! -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 10:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri, I would like to bring this and this to your attention. If the affidavits are invalid (if they do not correspond to the ones provided to the court), this may be prejudicial to the plaintifs and misleading to readers. I think both links should be removed right now, while we look for an official reliable source for the affidavits. Thanks for help on this matter. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hallo Khukri, you have deleted Achse de Guten once. I think itshould be reestablished. Its a sort of network of (mainly liberatarian) authors including e,g, Henryk M. Broder, Dirk Maxeiner, Michael Miersch, Hannes Stein, Cora Stephan and various others, scientists and professional journalists. The webblog informs about their activities ivarious media and is establishing as well a sort of opinoion network. The blog has a hitrate of more than 50.000 visitors per month and is mentioned in the german acknowledged media.
It has various connections and parallels to Spiked (magazine) in the UK.
I have updated some of the german entries and if you provide me the deleted entry, i will update it accordingly. Thanks for a feed back and best regards -- Polentario ( talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)