User talk:Hvarako

Hydrino theory

Naudt's paper has not been peer reviewed, so his views should not be included in the hydrino theory article. Please see the verifiability policy for guidelines on acceptable sources. - mako 10:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the verifiability policy. It is one of the core Wikipedia policies. - mako 10:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Physical_sciences.2C_mathematics_and_medicine. - mako 10:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naudts (I have been inadvertently leaving off the 's') is hardly a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise". Rather, this is a case where we should "cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus", and the consensus is that the solutions are non-physical. I am not disputing the existence of these solutions, as you seem to believe, but I object that Naudts' non-mainstream hydrino speculation is given such precedence in this article.

From reading your latest comments about separation, sure: part of my objection to this material is that it confuses an already unwieldy issue. But at the end of the day, how relevant are the Klein-Gordon solutions? Is there any evidence that the electron has spin 0? Such speculation is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. - mako 06:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's curious, but lots of things are curious because they're not correct. Surely someone would have noticed the higher-energy spectral lines by now, if they existed. I'm still of the opinion that the material is idle speculation, but I guess it's mostly harmless to mention this stuff (and caveats), provided it's not in the article exposition. - mako 02:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly biased edits

Before you make any further edits, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and apply the rules set out in that policy. -- ChrisO 07:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War in Croatia

Hi Hvarako, If you want to change the name of an article and this is perceived as potentially controversial, please go to WP:RM and make your case. In the meantime, I have protected the article against page moves. Please do not try any copy and paste page moves or the like as these are quite disruptive as the article edit history gets lost and so on. Anyway, I am sure you would be able to discuss in a civil way and rach some kind of agreement. Thanks, --Asterion^talk 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hvarako, don't move article, if the title was disputed (case: Croatian War of Independence).
First, you have to discuss it with opponents. And "beat" them with arguments, not by childish doing it your way or "shoot-then-pose-questions" method, neither by being more loud. Arguments count.
But you didn't do that. You've ignored all argumentation on the talk page (it exactly dealt with your arguments!!!).
Don't hide behind the argument "a bunch of Croatian users". Your comment was "there was certainly no concensus - just a split between croatian users, and other users who were for the change into War in Croatia. War for independence is in" [1], [2].. That's not an argument, you haven't criticised the content; instead, you wanted to make it your way by attacking others.
These "Croatian users" (are Croatian users leppards, so their vote doesn't count?) gave some arguments, the others couldn't beat.
You cannot move the pages just like that. You're not allowed to do that. That, what you did, was vandalism, and that kind of behaviour is forbidden on Wikipedia.
Consider yourself being warned. Kubura 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (2)

Hi, thanks for partaking in the above discussion. However, please do not reformat other users' comments. If you wish to respond to another user's comments point by point (ie. splitting them up), please copy them and quote them as you wish, leaving the original post in tact. Thanks. Waggers 15:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]