User talk:Homocion

Your ideas about strangelets

Please can we stop the edit/delete cycle, and have discussion of the ideas about strangelets that you want to add to wikipedia. Please leave the strangelet and strange matter articles alone for the moment, and let's use the talk:Strangelet page to clarify your contributions, and write them in good English. I am happy to help you with this. Dark Formal (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assurance of heavy ion collision creating Color flavor-locked stranglets

I read the e-print of New solutions for the color-flavor locked strangelets. It can be produce by heavy ion collision. However they unable turn earth into a ball of stanglets. You probably know this by now If Read all the pages.

Also stop editing the safety sections of the Large hadron colider. --58.179.166.212 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

acknowledging your concern of the safety of LHC

I know you are concern about the saftey of LHC. Even I am concerned about it. In my opion there is a small chance of it happening but i can't prove it. If you worry about it to much maybe you should go to this website http://www.lhcdefense.org/Home_Page.html website is owned by Walter L. Wagner who trying to take legal action against CERN to much sure it is fully safe to operate the machine.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued addition of info the the LHC article.

Hi, Your arguments have been refuted by User:Dark Formal, User:116.240.141.173, User:58.178.144.222 & User:58.178.152.74, this means there is not concensus about your additions. I believe I have been accommodating with regards to you not having all the arguments verifiable, and Dark Formal has offered to engage in a scientific discussion about this issue. So I will remove your comments one last time, if you re-add them it's a signal you do not wish to engage in discussion (which is not just re-state your view point then re-add the material). Please engage in proper discussions before re-adding your material. Regards ^Khukri 09:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really understand what you mean by formal discussion i assume discussion means to edit each other posting, your group just erases postings, strangelets are the main con-cern of safety in the lhc and you should leave some kind of article, im clueless what you want to do, but i dont think proper to erase facts and issues, modify them and i believe that is how in a game you advance, but if the strategy is so different as erase vs. create we are in a dead alley.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs)

In addition, please observe WP:3RR or you may be blocked for edit warring. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well guys, sure, you just want to get rid of the info, as i say the Universe has its rules if you build a factory of strange matter youll have to face the properties of strange matter in theory and practice, thats the drill, good luck ill teach in my university, lets hope you are all right. seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs)

A discussion is where you have given your view point, someone like dark formal gave theirs and refuted your argument, now your next step would be to say, why he/she is incorrect (and the other editors) until concensus is achieved. I see you have reverted the arguments again, and take that to mean you do not wish to engage in discussion with scientist such as Dark Formal who claim to know what they are talking about. ^Khukri 10:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ice-nine

Since this is a controversial edit, please discuss any changes first on the Talk page. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to violate the 3RR rule on Large Hadron Collider

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Large Hadron Collider. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Thanks for your recent contributions to the two Vonnegut articles. Please discuss them in talk before re-adding them. Thanks, --John (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It may be that part of what you proposed could be included; as it stood it was way too long and rather badly written. Why not suggest in talk first next time? Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ice-nine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --John (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: INCORRECT WARNING

Thanks for your message [1] on my talk page. If you are not familiar with the three-revert rule, it states in part,

“

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

”

At 07:48 on 11 January 2008, I left a message Please be careful not to violate the 3RR rule on Large Hadron Collider on your talk page [2]. Your reverts to the Large Hadron Collider article in the preceding 24 hours are as follows:

Thank you for heeding my warning. I feel that you have the potential to be an excellent contributor to this article, and I am glad to see that you chose to stop reverting before being blocked for disruptive editing. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence principle and the nature of mass

Hi. Please check out the talk page for the equivalence principle article, and read the comments about the section you added about rotating space-time vortices. Dbutler1986 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]