←Archive 8 ( 351 - 400) | Khukri's talk archive 9 (401 - 450). Please do not modify | Archive 10 ( 451 - 500)→ |
Hi, can you take a look at this edit? It really doesn't seem neutral to me. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 11:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
Just a few philosophical questions.
Do you agree that the capability of physicists to focus on very specific details might sometimes cause them to neglect the wider picture?
Do you think that a father might see his own son through rose coloured glasses?
If a project carries an unknown probability of an infinitely grave consequence, what do you think would be the appropriate level of authority to assess the safety of such a project and authorise it to go ahead?
Rob
The foolish man seeks happiness in the distance, the wise grows it under his feet. Robfrost ( talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that maybe the results section might not be needed until the results are duly announced (that's why I had added the update tag). However, the layman's guide and initial start-up date should be included because many people (including non-scientists) want to understand what this project is all-about & the technical-details, though they're well-edited and quite knowledge-offering, but general people don't want to get bothered with them and want to understand LHC in simple-language only as this issue has received much attention from media to attract people from a wide-variety of backgrounds, including laymen and non-intelligentsia. Moreover, the start-up date is not quite visible in the main-article and that's why a separate section had to be added, which can also be used to add the results when they're announced. Thus, if deemed appropriate, please revert the edits. Thanks. -- Contribut ( talk) 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. By the way, wouldn't it be great if we could get the LHC article featured on the main page for the October 21 unveiling? Also, I might submit the safety article for peer-review or GA review soon. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 11:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Made the following change [1] BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Khukri for fixing a small anomaly re a large experiment Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
I just came here to award you this same barnstar =P . Congratulations and thank you very much for your help on such a complicated and messy subject.
PS: i don't know if this is the right way of thanking you. Let me know if it isn't. Cheers! -- MakE shout! 06:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
I don't have an account on Wikipedia, but I really need your help. I know it all sounds like something a madmen would imagine, but please bear with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ej6TrOijeg
Basically, this guy believes that Paul McCartney is the AntiChrist, and he says he has a suitcase proving so. I didn't believe him until he posted that video, which shows him walking around CERN and hiding the supposed suitcase in some bushes. Some people on Youtube are saying the book Angels and Demons, which is about the LHC being used for Satanic purposes, might be true because of this.
I know this sounds absolutely and utterly ridiculous, but can you tell me if you have had people walking around CERN with cameras and suitcases lately, or heard anything about it? I am extremely paranoid about this stuff, and you might be the only person who can help me with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.147.120 ( talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I know the answer is probably know...but do you happen to recognize where the suitcase was hidden? If you do, could you possibly try to find it? I know you're probably too busy doing whatever it is physicists do, but I'd like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.147.120 ( talk) 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I and one of my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of bias on a controversial topic Operation Blue Star, the summary of dispute can be found at [3], please let us know your views so that we can solve the dispute amicably. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion; I appreciate it. Biruitorul Talk 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the words of reason. I'm letting the matter drop until it's decided. DeadNative ( talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if there is any way to defend against this guy, but he comes in under different IP addresses every few days and posts "All hail the Large Hadron Collider", nothing more. I've listed his IPs noted to date since around Christmas on the talk page of his last appearance, at User talk:91.105.11.139. Maybe as an admin you know some tricks? Not too troublesome, anyhow. Wwheaton ( talk) 07:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how my edit was vandalism. The news article I had cited was valid.
[ [4]]
This is the site I had used as a reference. Please explain how this is vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalonTreman ( talk • contribs)
Not sure if you are still watching the WP:UTM warning templates, but have you noticed the many changes by I-210 ( talk · contribs)? At first I did not care for them, but out of respect for WP:BOLD, I did not revert. However, now that other editors have reverted some of the changes, I actually think I like I-210`s changes better. Before I wade in, I was wondering what your thoughts were. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I must say I'm very sorry for this. I know who was doing it. Just a friend of mine who goes to school with me at Prentice. He thought it would be funny to do this. I have asked him to not do it anymore and he seemed to agree. Again, sorry about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumi Katsuya ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Was considering the refs on this article. I retagged refimprove as only the expenses is reffed, and not the body of the article. Possibly just failing on inline citations. Widefox ( talk) 00:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you made this edit to the above article. It would have been worth while checking the IPs contributions as the previous edits were very similar and needed to be fixed. Also, it would probably have been useful issuing one of the warning templates from WP:VAN as the user continued to mess up article formatting and adding in dead links to other language wikis. I don't think they were malicious edits, but letting the IP know they were doing something wrong might have saved some effort. Happy editing, Nev1 ( talk) 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious why you deleted the Perenco article. It seems like a fairly major corporation that has articles on French Wikipedia and Portugues wikipedia. mennonot ( talk) 19:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
One good source is this article [5]. That is the term which tennis professionals and the media use to address the subject. The term "technical" may not have been accurately used by me but your use of the term "shriek" suggests your opinion rather than an unbiased position which wikipedia should have. Regards. Secretaria ( talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The IRFU logo is not allowed to be used in the 2007 Rugby World Cup article because it is copyrighted. The only reason it can be used on the Irish Rugby Football Union is because of WP:FAIRUSE, which allows the use of the logo for identification purposes only. The use of the logo in the 2007 Rugby World Cup article would count as decoration, which is not covered by Fair Use. – Pee Jay 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I am terribly sorry to bother you, but an editor with whom I am engaged in a quite hot (and - I am afraid at this point - endless) debate about a paragraph in the Purpose section of the LHC article (see the corresponding talk page) claims that, since you edited another section of the article while his version of the contested paragraph was in place, you (and a couple others who did the same) are tacitly agreeing with his position. Is that correct?
Thanks a lot for your attention and sorry again for the intrusion, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Note that I am not asking to take a position (a quite ungrateful task), just informing you that you are claimed to have taken one
I nicked your userpage design template, with alternate colors and of course some personal touches. I don't know you, so I don't know if you are the type who doesn't like to be nicked from. If you feel that I should remove the template, just leave me a note at my talk page. I'll be willing to revert to an older version. ceran thor 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed your edit summary on AIV and have two remarks: 1) Warnings have actually been give at all four levels, cf. User talk:84.253.141.77; 2) I have absolutely no stake in this debate, living mercifully far from the Balkans, and have only intervened because there seemed to be a repeated removal of a sourced statement without explanation and without willingness to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Favonian ( talk) 22:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Lausanne Football and Cricket Club
I don't think this was necessarily a soccer club.
See also Oldest football clubs-- MacRusgail ( talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That removal was a mistake--my apologies. and thanks for your message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jla464 ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings - Please explain why the Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur) page was deleted. There were many references supported Mr. Bentley's work history from outside unbiased third party publications and sources. Please inform what the issue is and what reason for deletion was. Thank You Hyim1 ( talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Harry Yim
Hello, Please can you explain why you have deleted my page entitled AEM Yorkshire. The content of the page was very different from a previous page entitled Advanced Engineering and Materials Yorkshire which you mention.
Please can you put my page back.
Thanks, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andham ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice the following deletion log entry: "10:25, 14 October 2009 Khukri (talk | contribs) deleted "AEM Yorkshire" (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)". Was it deleted per a deletion discussion? If so can you give a link to that discussion? I can find no evidence of one. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't use a the Tricolour flag, I used this flag File:Irelands Flag.svg which has the Ireland Rugby Union symbol on it and the CoA of the four provinces. I am not going to revert it because I think once is enough, but if you understand my argument I trust you to revert your own edit. Regards IJA ( talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Khukri this is a message regarding the page for Robert Louis Scharring-Hausen. Mr. Sharring-Hasuen was historical founder and notable person, regardless of his affilations with neighbors and friends. I am sorry I have been slow processing this article, I have been extremely ill this past week. I do have more information that needs to be added to this article. I am simply asking for some time to process it and request it not be deleted. Some of the vital material that needs to be submitted on this article has been difficult to obtain on the internet because the information is so old; example records from 1978 are readily available at copyright office, however all records prior to 1978 are not available through copyright search database. Hence referencing some of the material has been difficult because I am working on an article about someone who's history is from the early 1920's- 1960's. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracefaithme ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring List of drawing topics. Now the talk page needs moving. It will be interesting to see how User:The Transhumanist's ownership of article titles will be dealt with at ANI. He has an obsessive relationship to the word "outline", and thinks it should be used every single time. This started with him making totally undiscussed moves of several hundred articles to new names using the "outline of..." format. I'm also waiting to see how User:Jake Wartenberg will answer for the removal of the "move" button, thus preventing anyone from undoing his move. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to remove the section with the joke about the "Large" collider as unfit to the article Talk page (funny, though) but I somehow screwed up the edit summary and now it is truncated. I just wanted you to know that I did not mean to be so undiplomatic... Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
can you even check what i edited. I guess you can read. so plz. do read stuff i edited. then proceed with your admin tasks. Rachitadelhi ( talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Khukri, can you take at my clarification at the EW noticeboard ? Abecedare ( talk) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the sock.
If I may rant a bit: I think your handling of the EW report was not really ideal. If a user has made 9 reverts in 12 hours; including 4 after being given the 3RR warning twice and being told about the EW report; been reverted by 4-5 experienced editors (which shows that his edits are problematic); chooses to use a IP sock to avoid detection; is told to not use IP to avoid detection; then creates a new account and continues to edit war; leaves false and misleading edit-summaries etc ... it is not sufficient for an admin to simply AGF and claim the situation has calmed down. Also, I am not sure why you chose to give the user another "last" warning after he had already been given multiple last warnings by other editors following wikipedia guidelines - although I am sure this was not your intention, this does leave the impression that legitimate warnings from other users do not count for much, and this is presumptuous waste of their time and effort.
I am not looking for you to block the user now based on my above comment. I am rather hoping that you'll give my comment some thought and see if similar situations need to be handled differently in the future.
Abecedare (
talk)
19:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on Bigsuperindia ( talk · contribs)'s contributions ? His conduct is largely ok, but he is still struggling with wikipedia's content and copyright policies. Human nature being what it is, he is more likely to follow guidance from you than me - if you could step in and mentor him that would help both him and the encyclopedia. Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Luis Sancho is back, crazy and paranoid as usual (with a new twist, hatred against the "Anglos"). See the comments to this article on NYT, there is also a German guy announcing a new anti-LHC complaint at the UN. Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 12:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
He had to be the most boring vandal I've seen in weeks. Thanks again! -- NellieBly ( talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Khukri. What's up? E104421 ( talk) 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy of notifying me about the TfD. It's appreciated. Cheers, -- Aervanath ( talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Why, exactly, did you delete the page for the Chapel of Sacred Mirrors? I see no reason to remove an entire page of information so that others cannot access it. Sincerely, -- Mczuba ( talk) 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 13:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#Category:CERN_officials. Please be informed that guidelines specificaly prescribe not to empty categories while they are being discussed. Debresser ( talk) 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, looks like I missed your message until today. Sure, I would be glad to check it out. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Khukri, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Khukri/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Khukri, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Khukri/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion. Kwib ( talk) 16:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thx for the linking suggestion, that is usefull, much apreciated. btw I do hope that one day we may agree on content ; ) grtz m. Michel_sharp ( talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Large_Hadron_Collider#Edit_request_from_Ldlow.2C_30_March_2010, cheers, Chzz ► 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
RE. your message "Hi, I've reverted your edit here again as it's incorrect, as there is no Northern Ireland team. The statement is not about the consitutents of the union jack, for which you would be correct, but it's about the unions themselves and Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the IRFU."I've removed Ireland altogether as it's inclusion together with England, Wales & Scotland makes it appear Ireland is part of the UK. (PS. was already aware N.I. has no international rugby team.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.46.135 ( talk) 09:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Kafziel Complaint Department has reverted my recent correction of the particle accelerator lead paragraph, suggesting that "atom smasher" is a good term for "collider", and left a note on my talk page here. My version mentioned the older term, but implied it was an anachronism. I think I'm going to revert and take my case to the article talk page, and maybe also to the physics project, but as you are also an administrator, I thought I would seek your wisdom first.
After reading his msg, my position is that terminology should still be correct. It is the responsibility of professionals and academics to guide sloppy usage towards accuracy without being too obnoxious. And even a general encyclopedia, especially one that aspires to make "all knowledge" available to everyone, needs to be correct. It is inherently an academic exercise, after all. off course essentially no collider has ever smashed atoms...
On Google I get 425K hits on {"atom smasher"}, and 635K on {"particle accelerator"}, with some confusion due to the "Atomsmashers" music group and the Atom.smasher.org web site. I really think much of the problem is just that journalists and editors have limited room for headline space.
Do you think this is worth an argument? I don't want to waste a lot of time or bile just to "win", but I really think his reversion is a misnomer, and should not be perpetuated by Wikipedia. Thanks! Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the message. All is well. I've been off Wikipedia for a couple of months, but I intend to continue contributing. Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to recreate the page ComicRack deleted 2 years ago by you. ComicRack is one of the most known Comic Reading Programs (for independent coverage see www.addictivetips.com, www.makeuseof.com, www.pcworld.com as examples). Now I will not start this if it gets deleted again. Please advise. Thank you. -- Solano2k ( talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to delete the page about the U20 Swiss rugby. And I don't know how to do so. + How do I do that template you showed me for the players. Regards.
Zimbello09 ( talk) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
don't know why you deleted my remark about Gell-Mann's humor. I was in his quantum mechanics class when he said that. Ah-well....
PS: I see you are an administrator. Great - can you fix the comparison pages so as to use (for changes) blue or some colour that stands out for colour-blind people? Red looks black to us guys. SavantIdiot ( talk) 00:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
←Archive 8 ( 351 - 400) | Khukri's talk archive 9 (401 - 450). Please do not modify | Archive 10 ( 451 - 500)→ |
Hi, can you take a look at this edit? It really doesn't seem neutral to me. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 11:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
Just a few philosophical questions.
Do you agree that the capability of physicists to focus on very specific details might sometimes cause them to neglect the wider picture?
Do you think that a father might see his own son through rose coloured glasses?
If a project carries an unknown probability of an infinitely grave consequence, what do you think would be the appropriate level of authority to assess the safety of such a project and authorise it to go ahead?
Rob
The foolish man seeks happiness in the distance, the wise grows it under his feet. Robfrost ( talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that maybe the results section might not be needed until the results are duly announced (that's why I had added the update tag). However, the layman's guide and initial start-up date should be included because many people (including non-scientists) want to understand what this project is all-about & the technical-details, though they're well-edited and quite knowledge-offering, but general people don't want to get bothered with them and want to understand LHC in simple-language only as this issue has received much attention from media to attract people from a wide-variety of backgrounds, including laymen and non-intelligentsia. Moreover, the start-up date is not quite visible in the main-article and that's why a separate section had to be added, which can also be used to add the results when they're announced. Thus, if deemed appropriate, please revert the edits. Thanks. -- Contribut ( talk) 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. By the way, wouldn't it be great if we could get the LHC article featured on the main page for the October 21 unveiling? Also, I might submit the safety article for peer-review or GA review soon. Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 11:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Made the following change [1] BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Khukri for fixing a small anomaly re a large experiment Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
I just came here to award you this same barnstar =P . Congratulations and thank you very much for your help on such a complicated and messy subject.
PS: i don't know if this is the right way of thanking you. Let me know if it isn't. Cheers! -- MakE shout! 06:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
I don't have an account on Wikipedia, but I really need your help. I know it all sounds like something a madmen would imagine, but please bear with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ej6TrOijeg
Basically, this guy believes that Paul McCartney is the AntiChrist, and he says he has a suitcase proving so. I didn't believe him until he posted that video, which shows him walking around CERN and hiding the supposed suitcase in some bushes. Some people on Youtube are saying the book Angels and Demons, which is about the LHC being used for Satanic purposes, might be true because of this.
I know this sounds absolutely and utterly ridiculous, but can you tell me if you have had people walking around CERN with cameras and suitcases lately, or heard anything about it? I am extremely paranoid about this stuff, and you might be the only person who can help me with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.147.120 ( talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I know the answer is probably know...but do you happen to recognize where the suitcase was hidden? If you do, could you possibly try to find it? I know you're probably too busy doing whatever it is physicists do, but I'd like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.147.120 ( talk) 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I and one of my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of bias on a controversial topic Operation Blue Star, the summary of dispute can be found at [3], please let us know your views so that we can solve the dispute amicably. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion; I appreciate it. Biruitorul Talk 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the words of reason. I'm letting the matter drop until it's decided. DeadNative ( talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if there is any way to defend against this guy, but he comes in under different IP addresses every few days and posts "All hail the Large Hadron Collider", nothing more. I've listed his IPs noted to date since around Christmas on the talk page of his last appearance, at User talk:91.105.11.139. Maybe as an admin you know some tricks? Not too troublesome, anyhow. Wwheaton ( talk) 07:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how my edit was vandalism. The news article I had cited was valid.
[ [4]]
This is the site I had used as a reference. Please explain how this is vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalonTreman ( talk • contribs)
Not sure if you are still watching the WP:UTM warning templates, but have you noticed the many changes by I-210 ( talk · contribs)? At first I did not care for them, but out of respect for WP:BOLD, I did not revert. However, now that other editors have reverted some of the changes, I actually think I like I-210`s changes better. Before I wade in, I was wondering what your thoughts were. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I must say I'm very sorry for this. I know who was doing it. Just a friend of mine who goes to school with me at Prentice. He thought it would be funny to do this. I have asked him to not do it anymore and he seemed to agree. Again, sorry about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumi Katsuya ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Was considering the refs on this article. I retagged refimprove as only the expenses is reffed, and not the body of the article. Possibly just failing on inline citations. Widefox ( talk) 00:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you made this edit to the above article. It would have been worth while checking the IPs contributions as the previous edits were very similar and needed to be fixed. Also, it would probably have been useful issuing one of the warning templates from WP:VAN as the user continued to mess up article formatting and adding in dead links to other language wikis. I don't think they were malicious edits, but letting the IP know they were doing something wrong might have saved some effort. Happy editing, Nev1 ( talk) 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious why you deleted the Perenco article. It seems like a fairly major corporation that has articles on French Wikipedia and Portugues wikipedia. mennonot ( talk) 19:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
One good source is this article [5]. That is the term which tennis professionals and the media use to address the subject. The term "technical" may not have been accurately used by me but your use of the term "shriek" suggests your opinion rather than an unbiased position which wikipedia should have. Regards. Secretaria ( talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The IRFU logo is not allowed to be used in the 2007 Rugby World Cup article because it is copyrighted. The only reason it can be used on the Irish Rugby Football Union is because of WP:FAIRUSE, which allows the use of the logo for identification purposes only. The use of the logo in the 2007 Rugby World Cup article would count as decoration, which is not covered by Fair Use. – Pee Jay 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I am terribly sorry to bother you, but an editor with whom I am engaged in a quite hot (and - I am afraid at this point - endless) debate about a paragraph in the Purpose section of the LHC article (see the corresponding talk page) claims that, since you edited another section of the article while his version of the contested paragraph was in place, you (and a couple others who did the same) are tacitly agreeing with his position. Is that correct?
Thanks a lot for your attention and sorry again for the intrusion, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Note that I am not asking to take a position (a quite ungrateful task), just informing you that you are claimed to have taken one
I nicked your userpage design template, with alternate colors and of course some personal touches. I don't know you, so I don't know if you are the type who doesn't like to be nicked from. If you feel that I should remove the template, just leave me a note at my talk page. I'll be willing to revert to an older version. ceran thor 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed your edit summary on AIV and have two remarks: 1) Warnings have actually been give at all four levels, cf. User talk:84.253.141.77; 2) I have absolutely no stake in this debate, living mercifully far from the Balkans, and have only intervened because there seemed to be a repeated removal of a sourced statement without explanation and without willingness to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Favonian ( talk) 22:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Lausanne Football and Cricket Club
I don't think this was necessarily a soccer club.
See also Oldest football clubs-- MacRusgail ( talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That removal was a mistake--my apologies. and thanks for your message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jla464 ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings - Please explain why the Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur) page was deleted. There were many references supported Mr. Bentley's work history from outside unbiased third party publications and sources. Please inform what the issue is and what reason for deletion was. Thank You Hyim1 ( talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Harry Yim
Hello, Please can you explain why you have deleted my page entitled AEM Yorkshire. The content of the page was very different from a previous page entitled Advanced Engineering and Materials Yorkshire which you mention.
Please can you put my page back.
Thanks, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andham ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice the following deletion log entry: "10:25, 14 October 2009 Khukri (talk | contribs) deleted "AEM Yorkshire" (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)". Was it deleted per a deletion discussion? If so can you give a link to that discussion? I can find no evidence of one. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't use a the Tricolour flag, I used this flag File:Irelands Flag.svg which has the Ireland Rugby Union symbol on it and the CoA of the four provinces. I am not going to revert it because I think once is enough, but if you understand my argument I trust you to revert your own edit. Regards IJA ( talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Khukri this is a message regarding the page for Robert Louis Scharring-Hausen. Mr. Sharring-Hasuen was historical founder and notable person, regardless of his affilations with neighbors and friends. I am sorry I have been slow processing this article, I have been extremely ill this past week. I do have more information that needs to be added to this article. I am simply asking for some time to process it and request it not be deleted. Some of the vital material that needs to be submitted on this article has been difficult to obtain on the internet because the information is so old; example records from 1978 are readily available at copyright office, however all records prior to 1978 are not available through copyright search database. Hence referencing some of the material has been difficult because I am working on an article about someone who's history is from the early 1920's- 1960's. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracefaithme ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring List of drawing topics. Now the talk page needs moving. It will be interesting to see how User:The Transhumanist's ownership of article titles will be dealt with at ANI. He has an obsessive relationship to the word "outline", and thinks it should be used every single time. This started with him making totally undiscussed moves of several hundred articles to new names using the "outline of..." format. I'm also waiting to see how User:Jake Wartenberg will answer for the removal of the "move" button, thus preventing anyone from undoing his move. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to remove the section with the joke about the "Large" collider as unfit to the article Talk page (funny, though) but I somehow screwed up the edit summary and now it is truncated. I just wanted you to know that I did not mean to be so undiplomatic... Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
can you even check what i edited. I guess you can read. so plz. do read stuff i edited. then proceed with your admin tasks. Rachitadelhi ( talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Khukri, can you take at my clarification at the EW noticeboard ? Abecedare ( talk) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the sock.
If I may rant a bit: I think your handling of the EW report was not really ideal. If a user has made 9 reverts in 12 hours; including 4 after being given the 3RR warning twice and being told about the EW report; been reverted by 4-5 experienced editors (which shows that his edits are problematic); chooses to use a IP sock to avoid detection; is told to not use IP to avoid detection; then creates a new account and continues to edit war; leaves false and misleading edit-summaries etc ... it is not sufficient for an admin to simply AGF and claim the situation has calmed down. Also, I am not sure why you chose to give the user another "last" warning after he had already been given multiple last warnings by other editors following wikipedia guidelines - although I am sure this was not your intention, this does leave the impression that legitimate warnings from other users do not count for much, and this is presumptuous waste of their time and effort.
I am not looking for you to block the user now based on my above comment. I am rather hoping that you'll give my comment some thought and see if similar situations need to be handled differently in the future.
Abecedare (
talk)
19:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on Bigsuperindia ( talk · contribs)'s contributions ? His conduct is largely ok, but he is still struggling with wikipedia's content and copyright policies. Human nature being what it is, he is more likely to follow guidance from you than me - if you could step in and mentor him that would help both him and the encyclopedia. Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Luis Sancho is back, crazy and paranoid as usual (with a new twist, hatred against the "Anglos"). See the comments to this article on NYT, there is also a German guy announcing a new anti-LHC complaint at the UN. Cheers Ptrslv72 ( talk) 12:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
He had to be the most boring vandal I've seen in weeks. Thanks again! -- NellieBly ( talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Khukri. What's up? E104421 ( talk) 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy of notifying me about the TfD. It's appreciated. Cheers, -- Aervanath ( talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Why, exactly, did you delete the page for the Chapel of Sacred Mirrors? I see no reason to remove an entire page of information so that others cannot access it. Sincerely, -- Mczuba ( talk) 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 13:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#Category:CERN_officials. Please be informed that guidelines specificaly prescribe not to empty categories while they are being discussed. Debresser ( talk) 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, looks like I missed your message until today. Sure, I would be glad to check it out. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Khukri, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Khukri/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Khukri, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Khukri/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion. Kwib ( talk) 16:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thx for the linking suggestion, that is usefull, much apreciated. btw I do hope that one day we may agree on content ; ) grtz m. Michel_sharp ( talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Large_Hadron_Collider#Edit_request_from_Ldlow.2C_30_March_2010, cheers, Chzz ► 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
RE. your message "Hi, I've reverted your edit here again as it's incorrect, as there is no Northern Ireland team. The statement is not about the consitutents of the union jack, for which you would be correct, but it's about the unions themselves and Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the IRFU."I've removed Ireland altogether as it's inclusion together with England, Wales & Scotland makes it appear Ireland is part of the UK. (PS. was already aware N.I. has no international rugby team.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.46.135 ( talk) 09:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Kafziel Complaint Department has reverted my recent correction of the particle accelerator lead paragraph, suggesting that "atom smasher" is a good term for "collider", and left a note on my talk page here. My version mentioned the older term, but implied it was an anachronism. I think I'm going to revert and take my case to the article talk page, and maybe also to the physics project, but as you are also an administrator, I thought I would seek your wisdom first.
After reading his msg, my position is that terminology should still be correct. It is the responsibility of professionals and academics to guide sloppy usage towards accuracy without being too obnoxious. And even a general encyclopedia, especially one that aspires to make "all knowledge" available to everyone, needs to be correct. It is inherently an academic exercise, after all. off course essentially no collider has ever smashed atoms...
On Google I get 425K hits on {"atom smasher"}, and 635K on {"particle accelerator"}, with some confusion due to the "Atomsmashers" music group and the Atom.smasher.org web site. I really think much of the problem is just that journalists and editors have limited room for headline space.
Do you think this is worth an argument? I don't want to waste a lot of time or bile just to "win", but I really think his reversion is a misnomer, and should not be perpetuated by Wikipedia. Thanks! Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the message. All is well. I've been off Wikipedia for a couple of months, but I intend to continue contributing. Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to recreate the page ComicRack deleted 2 years ago by you. ComicRack is one of the most known Comic Reading Programs (for independent coverage see www.addictivetips.com, www.makeuseof.com, www.pcworld.com as examples). Now I will not start this if it gets deleted again. Please advise. Thank you. -- Solano2k ( talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to delete the page about the U20 Swiss rugby. And I don't know how to do so. + How do I do that template you showed me for the players. Regards.
Zimbello09 ( talk) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
don't know why you deleted my remark about Gell-Mann's humor. I was in his quantum mechanics class when he said that. Ah-well....
PS: I see you are an administrator. Great - can you fix the comparison pages so as to use (for changes) blue or some colour that stands out for colour-blind people? Red looks black to us guys. SavantIdiot ( talk) 00:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)