Lockstone

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lockstone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Question

I have tried to create a more balanced first paragraph which shows the life as a whole, with emphasis on the professional life first. I have cited UCL's statement that it removed him from his position, but highlighted the fact that it didn't state what the views in question were. This is in accordance with Wikipaedia's policies that everything should be verifiable. Until UCL do state why they removed him any surmises as to why he was removed are unverifiable, even if they can be referenced.

I have removed emotive terminology. Lockstone (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I am trying to produce a version which shows the subjects life in the round. I am not attempting to disguise controversies but set them in a general context of the life. 'Holocaust denier' is an emotive term, to my knowledge the subject does not deny that Jews suffered at the hands of Nazis, I don't think it should be used or placed first. There is no doubt the subject questions various widely-held beliefs about the fate of the Jews under the Nazis. Obviously if there is an edit war going on this is going to have to be decided by some editors, I am trying to justify my changes at length it would be interesting to hear from Mhym, why are they so keen to have 'holocaust denier' in the first line? I think we should start with an overview of subject's life and then move towards areas where they may have caused controversy.

Note 7 doesn't stand up I have tried to relate the subjects views on the holocaust to his professional life - why does mhym want to change this.

To my knowledge Wikipaedia is not a forum for character assasination, nor for placing emotive terms in the first line of an entry where anyone seeking information on the subject can see them.

E P Lockstone

Are you User:Dr E P Lockstone? If so, please realize that wikipedia, in general, does not allow users to have multiple accounts—please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Please select one account to use, and the other should be retired and tagged {{Former account}}. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected the talk page of EPL here, tagged EPL as former, and blocked the account so you don't accidentally reuse it. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of non-reliable sources

Please review WP:RS, you ae continuing to link to sources that are unacceptable on wikipedia. Our own personal opinions notwithstanding, there are policies and guidelines that are in place, and CODOH is not a reliable website. You may request further clarification on WT:RS. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kollerstrom

Hi Lockstone, I have a query about this edit of yours. I'm having difficulty finding sources saying that he graduated with a Natural Sciences degree or that he worked for the govt. I can find no source at all that mentions a govt job, and the best source I have for his first degree is that it was in History and Philosophy of Science. Can you say which sources you used? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)