User talk:Khukri/archive8

←Archive 7 (301 - 350)

Khukri's talk archive 8 (351 - 400). Please do not modify

Archive 9 (401 - 450)→

Why Did You Delete Ed Boyd?

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)

I deleted it as a copyright infringement of his campaign website. Also being a candidate for any electoral position does not automatically make him notable. ^Khukri 08:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion after modifications, what to do ?

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 didn't delete it because of the conflict of interest I deleted it on notability grounds and that there was no assertion of notability. Imagine how many articles Wikipedia would have if it listed every API, or piece of software someone wrote? Sorry ^Khukri 14:09, 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)

LHC concerns

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)

I have never said that, I think you have your editors confused. ^Khukri 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On the LHC talk page "Please do not mistake removal of information as censorship, just the removal of orignal research. There are a number of links already within the concerns section to published papers on these theories, and if you wish to add more, or links to any recognised publication then no problems. But there are far too many theory sites out there, that base themselves around the uncertainty with regards to hawkins radiation and/or cosmic rays, then go off on conjecture and unsupported hypothesis to scare mongering. It's a perceived problem and people will be coming to wikipedia to try and understand the issue, so lets make sure the article sticks to the facts (what is known), that there are a few members of the scientific community that have concerns, and what are the foundations for theses concerns. Khukri 11:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)" 69.181.38.64 (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look I put perceived problem and it's the reason I added the citation needed to where it said physicists have concerns. It was already in the article that there are physicists with concerns before I actively became involved and my question is what are the foundations for these concerns, in other words add references. I think there are a couple of physcists out there who think it's going to end the world, in the same way there are a couple of scientist out there who think the theory of evolution is bunkum and that the world was created in 7 days. That's to say they exist but isn't the mainstream opinion or theory. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I want is that joe public can come to the article and see a neutrally written article, that there are theories that have gained popular press, and what was the basis behind these theories so that readers can understand for themselves. There has been a reference added recently by Homocion but in my personal opinion this isn't sufficient. I have to walk a very thin line, the fact I work at CERN, I get given less leeway when I delete unreferenced material than a normal editor, hence if you look all through the talk page I have continually re-iterated about the addition of only verifiable information. I personally believe it is media fueled hype, hence I added the media links to the first paragraph that has seen some pseudo scientists clamour that certain things are fact, when no such thing has been proven. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. ^Khukri 09:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AH thank you for the clarification that is reassuring. The preponderance of evidence does seem to rules out such catastrophes but the consequences are so grave one can not help but worry. I am looking forward to the new safety report that CERN says they will be releasing this month.69.181.38.64 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand both the RHIC report and the latter CERN report were quite exhaustive on the subject, so I'm not sure how much new material can be added. The problem with another report, is no matter how much it proves or disproves a theory there will always be those with conflicting arguments or viewpoints who will come out with more conspiracy theories, or the strawman argument of Oh well CERN were going to say that anyway, they have a vested interest. Anyway sorry for the confusion again, and any other probs don't hesitate to get in touch. cheers ^Khukri

LHC

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)

CERN template

OK, thank you. I'll appreciate your work on the CERN article ! {Sheliak (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)}

Regarding comment made on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page

(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)

Beams direction at the moment of collision

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)

To be honest I have no idea as I've said before I'm not a physicist. I would pose the question on the talk page, Dark formal and a couple of the others seem to really know their physics and would be able to respond more authoritatively than I can. Sry can't be of more help. ^Khukri 10:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say Thank you

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)

User:Random403

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)

It appears I owe you an apology. I believe I misinterpreted what you were suggesting with your edit summary. --Onorem♠Dil 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

s'ok as soon as I posted it I misread my own words as well, but thought oh well you'll get in touch. Sorry for the confusion and any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^Khukri 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:75.190.176.31

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)

Sofa (Canadian band)

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)

Just because they are signed to a notable record label, does not by implication make the band notable. As deleting admin I couldn't see any assertion of notability nor could the editor who put the speedy tag on the page. If you can give examples of notability then I would suggest taking it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers ^Khukri 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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. There is certainly no reason to make the user or the community to jump through procedural hoops just to get an article userfied. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your (no nonsense) response, but I disagree. I've have seen alot articles of non-notable bands with promises of notability going to being asserted on a number of occasions, and it never happens and someone else has to waste there time tagging it and deleting it again. If you look through my talk page, you will see alot of "Why was my favourite article deleted" and almost everytime it's the same arguments. I am well aware of what userfying the article means, and as was mentioned it with a view to restoring it eventually to article space. The format of this article isn't at question, it's the notability. If there is new notability, what is wrong with demonstrating this, instead of so often happens the article get re-created and then someone else wastes time having to re-tag it and then delete it again. But as you've done it anyway it's a moot point. ^Khukri 16:20, 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)

And because you say it's notable therefor it is? Notability was not asserted on the article, its talk page or by the editor who wished to userfy the article. Unfortunately you seem to believe I have a vested interest in the deletion of this article. It was put up for a speedy deletion as a non notable band, and nothing in the article asserted notability and I agreed with the original editor. Normally I try and help where I can and if you read my front page, I say leave a polite message and I will investigate, though as you have adopted a confrontational tone and have not assumed good faith, I'm not inclined to do so. As you will be reporting this matter these are the channels open to you WP:ANI or here. ^Khukri 13:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

and because you say it is not therefore it is? what kind of double standard is that. Firstly, i adopted a confrontational stance because it is appalling when admin's unjustly (as in their actions are unjustified) go out of their way to delete entries which are meaningful enough to others to warrant sitting down and typung an entry (read: fan) yet are out of the peripheral view of the admin, because it is not part of their knowledge base. I have no idea how being at CERN qualifies you to be making judgements regarding the state of indie rock, its history/lineage or even music in general. The reasons for notability are listed in the body of the text - did you ever do a google serach before deleting? Because if you had you would have come across (at the very least) the reviews section of the band's page on the constellation site for a roundup of critical texts regarding the band's eponymous release "Grey" from such influential magazines as the UK's 'The Wire" and NY's "Vice" magazine. Did you not catch the fact that the guitarist is one of the founders of the label (have you even heard of it?) and that he know plays in "A Silver Mt. Zion"? Who are one of the biggest indie bands in the world at the moment? Just the fact that Sofa spawned that is notable enough to trump whatever nebulous criteria that you are single handedly wielding with such an authorial air. I would have been polite had you not so gracelessly deleted the entry in the first place, which immediately damned your credibility to do so in the first place as any serious fan of independent music would have realized the folly of such an act. And yes I have already submitted the topic to a deletion review.

It's like me suddenly deleting your edits on the CERN topic as I deemed them not "notable" - how laughable that would have been to you...I guess what I am saying is, do your research first instead of lazily deleting and waiting for someone to come and "prove" to you the notability of an entry, why not prove it to yourself through some digging!

- sentinal9

edit conflict(I can't see anything that screams notability here except the label, and I thought I answered that quite clearly above. Anyway you've gone through the correct channels and asked for a deletion review as you feel so strongly about it though next time, please use a less confrontational tone and you may find like others have done previously that I'm very willing to help out. (look through my archives) ^Khukri 13:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i am just realizing that you simply confirmed the deletion request - how do i find out who the original editor who suggested it? also, i cannot find out how to post you the deletion review link that i submitted, however it is on todays log for deletion review discussion. I am really not trying to be an a-hole here, it is just that it is disheartening to see this kind of thing happen - maybe the original editor had a vested interest in seeing it removed, because as i stated already, it is the ONLY entry from the entire constellation catalogue to be deleted - can you explain that fact alone?

All of the history is still attached to the article that is in the link above. Now you are willing to discuss the matter give me 5 mins and I'll explain to you the time line history. ^Khukri 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have had some coffe now and am not so hot under the collar! I am sorry for the confrontational thing, but as i am a total newbie and only signed up to fight this deletion(!), I was ready to take on a nameless and faceless foe whom i saw as being an anonymous arbiter of cultural value. I am totally willing to listen to your point of view and see the edit history and such - all i ereally want to do is resolve this issue :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinal9 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

and i agree that the original article was offering scant information of notability - sentinal9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinal9 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, the page hasn't evolved really since it's creation in 2005. It was first nominated for deletion in 2006 and the tag was incorrectly removed by a non admin. Again it was given a kick in Oct 2007 to try and get some verifiability introduced and wikify the article, and the editor who nominated it two months later most probably saw that no-one had made any effort to resolve these issues and speedied it, which is where I come in. Though in essence it could have done with a prod instead. The fact you have begun to assert notability should mean it's not too difficult to restore this article, which would normally mean it would go AfD, though you have started the deletion review would be easier to go that way. Now the easy option, you can go back and quickly edit your deletion review request giving links that demonstrate your assertion of notability. As you've already hit upon above, what is notable to one may not be notable to another and though you may know the subject matter, many others may not, read here for ways of demonstrating this. I would also suggest reading WP:MUSIC has some very good guides as to notability within the music areas of Wikipedia. If you need any further help give me a shout.

Also on a side note when you write on someone talk page put ~~~~ at the end and it will automatically sign your posts. ^Khukri 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the protocol at work and I will indeed post a link ( i think i maybe did? -will check) - thanks for taking the time to respond...and sorry again for the tone, will definitely keep that in check now that i know there are not auto-bots lurking behind these aliases :-) Sentinal9 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK good stuff, I see you've added a link to your statement though more you can find the stronger the case. All of the points you mentioned in your first post, if you can show verifiable sources for these then you should have no problems at all. cheers ^Khukri 14:41, 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)

Thanks a million for getting the sofa entry a bit more up to snuff Chubbles - hopefully now it will get reposted soon :-)Sentinal9 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK now, good work. Could get moved back over now problems now by DRv. ^Khukri 16:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the above comment. Chubbles (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sry, just post to the deletion review here showing the article in your user space, and it should be restored quickly.

Just so the air finishes on a clearer note, apologies to you both if I've made life difficult for you. As I have stated previously I do make mistakes. None of my actions were with malicious intent, I do what I believe to be correct with regards to the various policies, and if you look through my talk pages have always tried to assume good faith and have stated my reasonings clearly. Whilst other admins may disagree with me or take different approaches, and some may take the same position, in the end we are only here to try and improve the encyclopedia, and with that in mind I hope you will not hesitate to get in touch if I can help in anyway. ^Khukri 16:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

and my apologies if I caused any offense or alarm with my comments which were made in haste and were perhaps ill-considered. I am terribly pleased to see that wikipedia functions like this - and I will certainly be more amenable if/when i ever post again - thanks again khukri and chubbles for your patience and quick action :-) Sentinal9 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sofa redux

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)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisms committed by User:Gerald Gonzales

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)

We do not block to teach a lesson, and the vandalism is not clear. Please explain in detail the vandalism or I will have to remove and you can take to WP:ANI. Cheers ^Khukri 09:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because his vandals has been reverted such as this (note that Kokey is an "alien" figure in Philippine TV) and has even created hoax pages such as Subic Rape (Movie) and Kokey Remake. If we leave him alone, he will never learn his lesson. Starczamora (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the request from AIV, and you can explain here. I have to assume good faith, with all edits and not knowing the subject matter means I have to rely on you explaining why this is vandalism. AIV is only for simple clear cases of vandalism, normally this would pass by WP:ANI. Give me the information that is clear to you and I will investigate. ^Khukri 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has associated a stunted alien over Marian Rivera as exemplified here. My apologies for being rash, but Philippine showbiz articles are prone to vandals between warring fans from major TV stations. Starczamora (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I've had a look myself as well, and cannot find any mention of these films that he's created articles for. The fact he is not engaging in discussion means I have had no other option but to block. I take it you have these type of articles in your watchlist, if you see this type of activity again, either leave me a message here or take to ANI, explaining in detail the reason why it is vandalism. As I said above administrators, have to assume good faith and we cannot block just because one editor calls another a vandal. Now when the subject matter is more complicated it's advisable to take this problem to WP:ANI in future instead of AIV. Any questions don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^Khukri 09:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you indef ban him? Obviously, the user is pretty malicious. --Howard the Duck 12:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite agree with malicious, some of his edits were genuine with that it mind I gave him a week ban, and have left the message on the talk page anymore and it will be permanent. Also I'm going to watch list a couple of articles, anything similar and I will block on sight be it IP or registered user. ^Khukri 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a pattern: ABS-CBN-related articles: valid, GMA Network-related articles: malicious. --Howard the Duck 12:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence the reason we assume good faith, as we want his valid edits but not the malicious ones. ^Khukri 14:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find very little "valid" edits, most of his edits were page blanking, blatant vandalism and creation of hoaxes. --Howard the Duck 04:57, 13 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)

Blocked and reverted, due to the nature of some of the pictures uploaded. Though in future WP:SSP is the correct place for reporting sock puppets. ^Khukri 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I went to you since you know the issue first hand, anyway I'll go there if more malicious edits arise. Thanks again. --Howard the Duck 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My admirer

Hehe! Thanks XD delldot talk 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. :) ^Khukri 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BQZip01/Comments

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. ^Khukri 08:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was retained expressly on the understanding it was going to be used to complete the RfC process and then deleted shortly thereafter. Several administrators have offered to delete it for him on User_talk:BQZip01, but he has ignored or declined those requests. Please see also User_talk:Riana, User_talk:Johntex, User_talk:TheOtherBob for more on the post-RfC-filing deletion. User has since gone on an extended wikibreak, so I'm not thrilled at the prospect of having to wait until he comes back to rectify this. Thanks for your help, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the disputes that have gone on, though I have passed a quick eye over them. As the page is in user space, and it is not the "owning" editor who is requested it be deleted, and that it was the subject of a recent previous MfD means it cannot / should not be speedied. I suggest refiling the MfD, though I will leave a message with Riana for input here, who knows the issue better than I do. Cheers ^Khukri 09:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason why the page shouldn't be deleted, as that was the agreement after the MfD - delete the page after the RfC was filed. I don't think the request should have come from CC, since he was so involved in the incident, but I've deleted it nonetheless. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries, I've deleted the talk page as well though. Cheers. ^Khukri 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SummerThunder

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)

I went ahead and withdrew the request because he hasn't been active for almost an hour now. As for the uncharacteristic edits in the user's contributions, I think the IP is likely shared, and was coincidentally used by a non-malicious user, just after I filed the report. In other words, two users were likely on the same IP, and one happened to be SummerThunder. szyslak 09:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I take that back ... he just started up again on the same IP. JuJube just filed another report. szyslak 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems, and no problems with you re-adding the AIV report better safe than sorry. Though looking at the new edit it's very difficult to block on that edit alone as unless you know the subject or the sock, it doesn't appear to be vandalism to me. That's why I suggested getting Riana or one of the other admins on the MO report to have a look, they are better positioned to make an assessment than most admins on AIV who don't know the sock or it's history. Unfortunately I have to assume good faith with the editor, and unless someone says he is a vandal because X is blatantly untrue, then I personally will not block, though another may. If you have any more info gimme a shout. ^Khukri 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PALGN

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)

No worries at all, was borderline when you put the tag on it, but now the main editor has jumped and started adding refs etc, it isn't looking too much like a bad article. All the best ^Khukri 09:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA

.: Thank you! :.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA. To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind." Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Chapel of Sacred Mirrors

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)

Because it is an article that has been created a number of times and been deleted as spam and for copyright infringements, hence it was protected to stop recreation. Create the article in your user space, when you have done it make sure it is notable, has reliable sources to demonstrate it's notability then I will look to move it back into article space. Cheers ^Khukri 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely will do, thanks for the info. Jason7825 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked a range you've been dealing with

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)

LHC

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)

Hey bud, it was you LOL. I only noticed it when someone left a narky edit summary last night, so I removed the metric ton, as that's a tonne in our language ;). I think a little bit of licence has to be given with sources when it comes to MOS, as it puts it out of step with the rest of the article. I personally would just link it as a reference and let readers suss it out for themselves. Anyway thanks for the message, not a problem, and again thanks for the neutral eye (oversight) you are keeping on the article, keeps me in line when I have to repeat the same ol stuff again, and again, and again. ^Khukri 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review

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)

Yer OK I would have done the same. There are no rules about blocking, and telling another editor to fuck off no matter what is blockable, don't care if he just received a warning which he didn't understand. Some people are too willing to accept bad manners with the excuse he didn't know any better, using reasoning like you did put a warning on his page, he was just re-acting to that. Trigger happy editing of insult first and talk later is simply wrong. Now you are a new user you receive a warning off someone, normally if you are a good faith editor and you didn't understand why, you go and ask them what it's for. Then comes the apologists reason "Oh he's a newbie, didn't know how it worked, didn't see the talk page message". This is rubbish as he found it fast enough when he wanted to insult wisdom. The sandbox edits are a strawman argument, yes there was a minor infringement there, but that isn't the issue. Even if they were good faith edits (can't understand why he blanked Slakr's page), and no matter if wisdom's 4im was a tad strong, there is never any reason for insult first because someone may have made a mistake. That is simpy reactionary, rude, and wrong, though unfortunately some people are willing to accept that, not just on wikipedia but in society in general. ^Khukri 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thanks!! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User you blocked

Recommend protecting the Talk page. Enigma ^msg! 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon vandal 66.244.202.65

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)}

Resolved

 – Blocked for three months. ^Khukri 02:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange AfD

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)

WikiProject Council roll call

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.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Slon in Sadež

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)

Re: Thx

No problem, as long as i on. :) --Aleenf1 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Closedmouth

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)

I assume you're following the conversation. I hope I've not put him off. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 8 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)

Problems at Maitreya

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)

Bringbackthetylers

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)

To be honest I'm not seeing any indication of bad behaviour, I do see you however throwing alot of warnings and accusations around without 1) discussing the issues or 2) assuming good faith. Now I understand Cribben is dead but do we know he is not in the episode? All of his edits on the face of it appear genuine. Now if you know it's vandalism you need to explain in detail why it is so, as I'm sure the average admin is not a Doctor Who expert. Now I fail to see how an edit about a dead person is in breach of BLP, he's no-where near 3rr however you are, I find it ironic you are trying to protect the status quo of a future episode stating crystal ball in fact most of the reading you left on the editor's talk page was wrong, with the exception of verifiablity. That is the reason why I removed it. As I said before on your talk page here you have not asked the editor why at any point but instantly reached for the warnings templates, though I have no doubt in your belief about the knowledge of the subject, he/she may also know something about it. ^Khukri 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Cribbins is ALIVE. His heart beats, his lungs breathe the heavenly scent of British air. Hence the biographies of living persons. That's where you made your mistake. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I said I'm not an expert on Doctor Who or the actors therein, but do you know he is not in the episode, and for some reason IMDB seems to agree with the Editor, could you be wrong? ^Khukri 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I actually expect he is in the episode (though IMDB is editable, like Wikipedia, so isn't at all reliable... it was probably the Editor who added it there too!), but you don't seemt to understand that INFORMATION about LIVING actors MUST be SOURCED. He added INFORMATION about a LIVING actor without a SOURCE so it's not ALLOWED. What's confusing? —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I do or don't understand, I'm not going to scan through everylink I can see on google for verifiability but just a simple search shows that it's more than just one site which has Cribbins appearing in this episode. There may be a verifiable one in there somewhere, but I'm not going to look for it now. Now I ask you again do you know this is incorrect and could Bringbackthetylers have been editing in good faith? Now if he was editing in good faith, would it not be easier to explain the issue pointing him/her to BLP, and verifiability, instead of going straight to AIV, then leaving messages about 3RR etc?^Khukri 21:41, 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:

• The actors themselves.
• The BBC's Doctor Who microsite
• Doctor Who Magazine
• Radio Times
• Outpost Gallifrey.

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)

I have no problems with that at all, but what I do take issue to is editors trying to wield the banhammer when a simple message to inform an editor who may not know better would/could have sufficed, instead of calling their edits vandalism etc. I realise that it must be an arduous task trying to keep out the fancruft, and whilst respecting the article we must also respect the editors themselves. Unless the edits are clear cut vandalism, we should always reach for the carrot instead of the stick, or we risk alienating potential good editors who get bullied away when they may have thought they were helping the project. ^Khukri 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, Khukri. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

User:Samuel oliver bradford smith

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've only thrown the block in so I can look to see what the hell was going on there first before making a further decision. The first few edits seemed sane and then he went of the rails. I'm still looking at it but am inclined to agree with you. ^Khukri 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On first glance it seems there were a number of good edits. But when I went diging nearly all were the same abusive comment - which I've now rolled back. Up to you my friend, I'll support either way. Pedro :  Chat  12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea that's exactly what I thought at first, due to the sensible edit summaries ,hence the reason I didn't go straight for the indef. Just going to make it indef now and I've left a message with Thingg, to make him aware of it. Cheers ^Khukri 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind User:B came in and did it anyway O.o ^Khukri 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The naming of Wahlberg's Epauletted Fruit Bat also seems incorrect - I don't see any good edits. Tedickey (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I noticed you objected at ANI to my doing an indef block of this guy at 12:09 after you have done a 24 hour block at 12:00. When I got there there was no block on him. I didn't look at the history, but I see now he had been unblocked at 12:08 by someone apparently trying to tweak your block to add email and I caused confusion by blocking in the middle of his tweak. Anyway I wasn't trying to imply there was anything wrong with your block being 24 hours. --BozMo talk 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No problems, you got caught a wee bit as you didn't do the unblock. I'm not 'too' bothered by it, just we've had a spectacular week for admins and good editors going AWOL, and I just wanted to remind admins about a little bit of sensitivity is required when changing other admin's (or any editor for that matter) edits and actions. But anyway no harm done and I appreciate you leaving a message. Cheers ^Khukri 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, what did I miss?

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)

Looks like in your, has to be said prolific vandal patrolling, you managed to find a new admirer who was leaving nasty edit summaries throughout Wikipedia about you. Had quite a spree about 13:00 european time. Took a few of us to revert the edits etc, no real harm done but nasty nonetheless. If you get any other serious admirers, take it AIV or ANI if it requires alot of tidying up. Keep up the good work it's always appreciated. ^Khukri 17:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Self harm

I agree. I don't do IRC either. Let me see what I can do. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No clue (I'm not approved either). I could try to find it for you. Malinaccier (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok:

First go here and join en-wikipedia.

Next add this message to the tab labeled "info":

/msg nickserv register [password]

(but don't forget to replace [password] with a password)

Finally go here and request access.

And you're done! Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, we found a CU who got the info and then called the police in NSW. So issue resolved. Read the thread for all the details. KnightLago (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the award, I certainly appreciate it. For context, I don't think the edit in question caused a great deal of concern while it was still visible as a deletion - it came across as a bored kid who was staying up way too late and wasn't very happy. It was followed by a banal edit to another article. Once it was oversighted, nobody could see the context. Nevertheless, I wasn't prepared to let it pass, and I believe I'll get IRC up and running too. Acroterion _(talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will join the IRC party as well. See you all over there. KnightLago (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Message

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)

Thanks, good job to you too. KnightLago (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks as well. That may be the most important work we ever do around here. Glad I could contribute. Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

LHC

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)

Argonne and Fermilab

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'm no expert but as I understand it you are right, Argonne is the largest but Fermilab is the highest energy. That's why I reverted it as it said Fermilab was the largest. Big difference between the two, but I'll just check to make sure I haven't balls'ed up. Cheers ^Khukri 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CERN

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)

Simply put no, there is no x33 hyper jet, there's no wind tunnels, and we don't have cannisters of anti matter lying around. But there is some pretty amazing stuff there. ^Khukri 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

LHC talk page

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)

Hi Bill, Sorry I didn't reply sooner, pretty busy at the moment as you can imagine. I'm well aware of Jtankers, Eloquence and a number of other editors and IP's who have a POV agenda. But you hit the nail on the head when I cannot use my admin tools not just because of my COI with respect to the fact I work at CERN, but also the use of admin tools in a content dispute in which you are involved is an extreme no-no.

The article has been stable for quite a long time, though I disagree with their view point, not just because of the science but due to one or two of the people involved in it who claim to be scientists, and the fact that this has not even got close to having any main stream supporters, it still deserves to be mentioned. Primarily due to the legal action and the fact that the media has picked up it makes this subject more than note worthy. I wouldn't worry too much about dispute resolution at this time, because even though I disagree with James (Jtankers) he's a reasonable fellow and as we've seen on the talk page in the last couple of days he's willing to let things cool, and he's also willing to listen to arguments about conduct with regards to wikipedia's guidelines, though not the viewpoint itself. Alot of the spam links that get added are just that, spam to promote their own agenda and do not bring anything to the article. Also a number of editors forget this section isn't about proving whether one side of the argument is correct or not, it should be about just that the arguments exist.

I haven't been editing much lately though do keep an eye on certain things, but after the court case (depending on the out come) the safety section can certainly be pruned as at the moment it is certainly going against WP:UNDUE. I certainly appreciate your efforts and not being a scientist myself the expertise you and other bring to the article is invaluable in countering some of the more fringe elements of these arguments. It's already been mentioned on the talk page but some of the arguments and tactics being used are identical to the I.D. debates and teach the controversy, and I've recently seen a Kent Hovind style impossible challenge, awarding thousands of dollars to anyone who can prove the LHC is 100% safe. Unfortunately the closer we get to first collisions, the louder the clamouring and rhetoric will get, so I cannot see this article remaining stable. I will try to do what I can but, I will just be repeating ad-verbatim the same arguments I have used before, verifiable, reliably sourced and No point of view, if you can challenge the science aspect then you are already one step ahead of me :) Where you find that you don't believe what's being presented or you find it dubious you can ask WP:PHYSICS or you might want to try User:Dark Formal he seems to know the science side pretty well. Thanks. ^Khukri 10:54, 6 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)

TfD nomination of Template:WPUW

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)

LHC again

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)

User warning templates

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)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I've now removed it. Many thanks ^Khukri 10:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

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)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

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)

I have stopped adding content unless I win dispute resolution. I will plan to limit my efforts to arguments on the talk page. --Jtankers (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: LHC

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)"

I've been biting my lip for a number of weeks now, but I've had enough. The article can only describe what can be reliably sourced, and I'm fed up with them using it to show their logic for their fears. Now I have no problems with their being concerns, it's only natural, but what I'm going to remove over the next week, is all the guff and paraphnalia that doesn't meet guidelines. I'm also to put it pretty bluntly pissed off with JT's comments towards me, when I have been the one trying to mediate,to help their argument and if it's possible to include it (not a chance now). Thanks for your help and knowledge it's appreciated. ^Khukri 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been doing a great job, an admirable job. Don't let it get to you, man! JT is suffering from real fear & megalomania (he's single-handedly saving the world), agony & ecstasy. The poor guy is really clueless about the physics, unfortunately. Anyhow, let's don't let it drive us crazy too. I think we will find we have all the support we need on this, but we gotta stay cool. Wwheaton (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Khukri, I did not mean to insult you. In the past you have acted in good faith. But your actions allowing editor Phenylalanine (talk) to violate Wikipedia rules and then warn me was biased, whether intended or not. I can not fight this battle alone. I acknowledge that. I don't believe that the CERN editors are following the spirit of Wikipedia, to protect minority opinions and not to censor. I had hoped that dispute resolution was an honorable method to solve this issue, but this method appears to be disfunctional. Again, I did not intend to insult you, and I complied with your wishes. This personal attack against me is not mature, democratic and reasonable in my opinion. If I offended you, I apologize. I just want to fight the battle following honest rules. I hope you will do the same. --Jtankers (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fyi: I have a bachelors degree in computer science and a year of college physics and 20 years of hobby physics study and I run two open source physics projects (bigcrash.org and mass.bigcrash.org). I was also the only student in my high school physics class to receive a perfect score on a relativity test. I realize that my background does not compete with career physicists, but I have unusual problem solving abilities and I believe that I see the same problem that Dr. Rossler sees, enough of a concern to be worried and to feel that more safety study is prudent. Even Dr. Hawking thinks man will more likely than not destroy himself. This is not a fringe notion. Please show the opposition reasonable respect. They could be correct, minority opinions sometimes are. --Jtankers (talk) 02:21, 10 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 ^Khukri 15:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Khukri, could you delete this page per this and this? Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks again! --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

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)

Achse des Guten

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.

• 15:27, 18 December 2007 Khukri (Talk | contribs) deleted "Achse des Guten" ‎ (content was: Die Achse des Guten is a German political Weblog and online diary operated by Henryk M. Broder, Dirk Maxeiner and Michael Miersch. Described as a "network of publishers" further authors compri...')

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)

Hi, I'm highly sceptical about the notability of a german weblog as it stood. But I can restore the article to your users space and you can make the necessary edits to improve it and I'll have a look if you wish. ^Khukri 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)