User talk:Khukri/archive9

←Archive 8 (351 - 400)

Khukri's talk archive 9 (401 - 450). Please do not modify

Archive 10 (451 - 500)→

Fermi paradox

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)

Revert it, calling anything ill advised without good reasoning or sources is blatant POV pushing and look like bog standard fringe theory scare mongering again. ^Khukri 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! This is some hypothetical experiment that destroys the Earth. Such an experiment would surely be ill-advised. The only alternative is that the experimenters thought it might be dangerous, but did it anyway. LouScheffer (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you were examining the hypothetical elements to which Fermi's paradox could pertain, then you would use hypothetical examples. To examine the paradox by pointing to experiments that have already had their fringe conspiracy theorists smacks just a tad of POV, and swaying an argument to the fact the these actual experiments are ill advised. ^Khukri 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the scenerios in this section are hypothetical (at least so far), but the concerns are not. Another similar example was the worry that the atomic bomb would set the atmosphere on fire. This possibility was raised by (very) mainstream scientists. Also, from the Wiki point of view, if you make up an entirely hypothetical example, you're doing OR. If you leave the example out, the article is missing a relevant reference to current events. Older examples such as the atomic bomb do not illustrate the point very well, since the answer is already known. Also, assuming no mad scientists, the objections will always be referred to as "fringe", since if there was real scientific content, the experiment would (presumably) not be performed. LouScheffer (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Authority

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)

To be honest, even though I work at CERN all I'm worried about is that the articles are verifiable, reliably sourced, and free of original research. There are hundreds of others sites and blogs more suited to assuaging public fears or responding to your questions. ^Khukri 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LHC

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)

Thanks, replied on Talk:Large Hadron Collider. ^Khukri 11:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the LHC

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)

Black Hole

Made the following change [1] BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems at all, I think it used to say that anyway, but I don't really follow that article too much. I think there is also a confusion between black holes and micro black holes, which is the subject of a couple of individual's concerns. Cheers ^Khukri 11:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that Black Holes are physically present.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the old chestnut of what is a "theory", much like theory of evolution, theory of hawking radiation, etc. A black hole can't be called a fact, it's an inference of what all the data and evidence points to, everything pretty much says that black holes exist, but as they haven't been seen per se they are a theoretical object. This can be also said for hawking radiation, everyone says hawking could be wrong, but as I said on the talk page there are 3000 works in the arxiv referencing and expanding on hawking's ideas, but very very few that dispute it. but as it's a theory means it can't be guarenteed. But I'm not a physicist, just someone who works near alot of it and has an interest, so could be completely wrong ;). ^Khukri 12:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also made a change here.. [2] there's lot of hanky panky for something that's never physically found. If there are findings, someone will add it. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Awarded to Khukri for fixing a small anomaly re a large experiment ϢereSpielChequers 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)

Thank you both, appreciated. ^Khukri 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Video

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)

He's not on the CERN site, he walks out of the car park, across the route de meyrin, out side the globe and down the road on the east side of the globe, doesn't show him on the CERN site whatsoever. The problem with "some people are saying" is that invariably they are not experts and are just giving their own opinions. As for Angels and Demons it is a work of fiction and has so many holes in it to make it bordering on the realms of fantasy. I wouldn't worry about it, but if you do I would contact CERN directly or the Geneva police, but in the grand scheme of things this doesn't seem an issue. ^Khukri 22:33, 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)

Help sought to get out of a dispute

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)

Emanuel

Thank you for your suggestion; I appreciate it. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin M. Emanuel

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)

Sockpuppet IP vandal User:91.107.191.22

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)

Hey Will, if they all came from the same sub domain, with no other editors caught in the crossfire, then it would be possible to do a range block. The only thing that we can do is semi-prot the article but as it's not really that frequent, unfortunately all we can do is revert, ignore, move on. Sorry ^Khukri 14:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much. Can't see us blocking 91.xxx.xxx.xxx through 94.xxx.xxx.xxx, so I guess we just have to let him play his little game until he gets tired of it. Thanks anyhow. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My edits to Large Hadron Collider

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)

Because you are adding incorrect information as I put on your talk page, please read April Fools which was yesterday, also WP:VAND, though I hope you realise this article is tongue in cheek. Regards ^Khukri 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to warning templates

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 had a quick scan through here and didn't see anything that screamed out of place at me, though I would maybe suggest to him there is alot of copy cat wording through all the templates, that maybe he does the same to all to stop fragmentation at a later date. Cheers and hope all is good. ^Khukri 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of User:205.213.89.2

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)

No problems and though it was an old issue, thank you for your message and attention. ^Khukri 12:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew MacKay

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)

CERN

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)

Deletion of Perenco article

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)

Because it was a copyright infringement, a copy paste of Perenco's website. ^Khukri 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrieking v Grunting

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)

See, to say that "her shrieks sound like dying foxes", that's an opinion. She's already noted for surpassing any other player in decibels in her wiki page. To call it shrieking seems to suggests you have someting against it (and while you're entitled to it, wikipedia isn't). I have seen opinions everywhere for and against her grunts. It seems to me that "shriek" takes it to criticism and given your comments on her discussion page, I have to assume that's where you wanna take it. Now if you wanna create an unbiased section about the grunts or shrieks or whatever where you write abou the two sides of the matter, that's fine by me (I think this discussion about tennis screams that seems to have emerged is only beggining). Secretaria (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2007 Rugby World Cup

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. – PeeJay 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Purpose section of the LHC article

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

Hey there, I'm not agreeing to anything with respect the current 'discussions' though I am following them albeit without your knowledge of the subject (not being a physicist). My only thought on the matter is I can't see why M. Price wants the sciam article to be a corner stone of this section and that it MUST be included, when there are thousands of articles/publications out there on susy etc, personally I think one persons commentary quegg(?) though possibly relevant is not notable, in comparison to published articles etc. Sorry I can't be of much help on this one. ^Khukri 07:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Khukri,

thanks for your reply. I was mostly worried about the silence=consent rule claimed by MichaelCPrice, of course if you don't feel like taking a side nobody forces you ;-) Concerning the debate, it is in fact me who's arguing in favour of Quigg's article. Leaving aside that in this particular field Quigg's opinion is more notable than Hawking's (not to mention Khalil's), the SciAm article gives a quite good and un-technical summary of the reasons why physicists expect that the Higgs boson and physics beyond the SM will be detected at the LHC. The paragraph that I am proposing is meant to be a super-short summary of those reasons. My objections to the choice of quotes in the present version of the paragraph are detailed in the talk page, but very briefly I think that Khalil's quote is content-free and Hawking's quote is slightly besides the point (for the Higgs part) and poorly worded (for the strings part). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicked

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. ceranthor 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

no problems at all, enjoy ;) ^Khukri 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! It's an awesome design. :) ceranthor 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Corfu incident

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)

Hi, I saw it was a repeat editor, but I had two issues with this, one a block is non punitive so I'm not blocking to punish but to prevent further vandalism to Wikipedia, secondly there was no recent final warning as it was from the day previous. Templated warnings do not fulfil every type of case or scenario, in this case I would leave a personal message along the lines of, I understand you have views on this article and working together on the talk page they could be incorporated with correct reference etc, you have already had a number of warnings, if you continue include this information without prior discussion, then an admin will be forced to block this IP. if it continues after the block expires then the length of block will unfortunately have to increase. I sincerely hope you see it is in everyone's best interests if you discuss the issue..... anyway you get the idea. Regards ^Khukri 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Our friend is certainly regular. Once every day, though Never on Sunday, the same thing. I've done as you recommended, so we'll see if can be goaded to the talk page. Favonian (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it made him break his habit. 11 minutes after I had appealed to his better instincts, he did what he does best. I request sage advise. Favonian (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift response. Let's hope it helps. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for doing as I suggested. This takes it out of the bog-standard templated warning and gives it a last attempt at dialogue, which unfortunately wasn't accepted. Normally I would have only issued a 24 hour block but as this IP only edits once a day, I wanted to create a break in editing of this article so have issued a block of three days. If the IP makes the same edit again after the block again please try to start a dialogue, if this is ignored let me know and I will issue a longer block to prevent further disruption to the article. Rgds ^Khukri 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger that! Favonian (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lausanne

Lausanne Football and Cricket Club

Das erste kontinentale Land, das sich dem Fussball zuwandte, war die Schweiz. Insbesondere im französischsprachigen Teil um Genf und Lausanne wurde das Spiel in den 1860er Jahren von Engländern, die an Schweizer Privatschulen studierten, eingeführt. Die Fachschulen wurden von zukünftigen Ingenieuren, Kaufleuten und Bankiers besucht. 1860 wurde der Lausanne Football & Cricket Club gegründet.[6]

I don't think this was necessarily a soccer club.

See also Oldest football clubs--MacRusgail (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal

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)

Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)

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

Hi, the article was deleted by Wikipedia's deletion process here, if you wish to contest it's deletion please take it to deletion review. Currently the article reads like a self promotional CV piece and most of the references facebook, self edited registries, blogs, do not meet references required as per WP:BIO. I have no problems userfying the article, where you can re-edit and try and assert notability before going to WP:DRV. Regards ^Khukri 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks you for the response. I believe there is only one reference to facebook and majority of the articles were not self-edited registries or blogs. Although I did include multiple articles that were not referenced in the bio text - but most of the referenced articles in the actual bio text were unbiased third party publications. It would be awesome if could userfy the article and I will make to the necessary adjustments. Thank you - Hyim1 (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Harry

The article has been restored to User:Hyim1/Andrew_Bentley_(British_Entrepreneur), pass by WP:DRV before seeking to return it to the main article space please. I would suggest seeking third party opinion(s) on the article before going to DRV. My personal opinion is the article is written as a self-promoting piece, screams conflict of interest, and is overly heavy on non notable information, it is not notable he worked for safeway etc, and as I have said previously it is written like a CV. Look at other similar businessmen/entrepreneur articles and I think as it stands it should be a large paragraph at best. Regards and good luck. ^Khukri 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AEM Yorkshire & Advanced Engineering and Materials Yorkshire

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)

Sorry I have just compared the two articles, and with the exception of adding alot of external links that do not enhance the article there has been no assertion of notability, which does not change my opinion of deletion as per recreation of deleted material. If you can identify how this organisation meets WP:NOTABLE and more importantly WP:CORP and that Wikipedia is not just being used to promote this organisation then please let me know or otherwise present this to deletion review where it will be quickly acted upon. ^Khukri 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thanks for your speedy response. However, I am still confused. The original version of the page was deleted by one of your colleagues as he said it was overly promotional. That was my mistake as I was unsure of the writing style to use for Wikipedia. I then significantly altered the style of the article to make it purely informative and non-promotional. This version of the page was accepted by your colleague. The page then happily lived on wikipedia for approximately a month, during which time a number of people contacted me to thank me for the information included on the page. I then added several more links to the page this week. I now understand more about wikipedia and can see that the ratio of information to links was not acceptable. Thus the links should be removed. However, the article itself is still a valid inclusion in wikipedia and as such should be reinstated, albeit without the links.

Thank you for your continued attention to this issue, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andham (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the article was deleted as per CSD A7 and I agree with that as the article currently stands. Even though the article was in Wikispace for a month isn't a rationale for inclusion. As I stated above at the moment the articles fail to meet WP:CORP, and it's not a quantity of links the article requires it's the quality of the verifiable & reliably sourced supporting information that is required. For example AEM being mentioned in The Skipton Gazette (as an example) would struggle as a noteworthy source. AEM being mentioned in the FT (depending on context) could make it noteworthy. What I need from yourself is something to show how it meets WP:CORP that denotes the notability of AEM to warrant it's inclusion, otherwise it would seem Wikipedia is being used to promote the notability this organisation as there would be nothing or very little supporting it. I did a quick google search on AEM Yorkshire and saw a number of web directories, and minor article on yorkshire forward, but nothing that stood out. On a side note, when you leave a message, if you include the four symbols ~~~~ this will automatically sign your post like --> ^Khukri 08:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You have just recreated the article. do not recreate this article again until you have demonstrated notability to myself or at WP:DRV, I will delete the article until this is done. ^Khukri 10:31, 14 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)

Hi there, the original version of the article was created as Advanced Engineering and Materials Yorkshire, and was speedy deleted on the 10th September as G11. The AEM yorkshire article was essentially the same article created by the same editor with quite a few more external links, presumably to their clients, which did not assert any more notability from the first deletion. Even though the editor who tagged the CSD tagged it as A7 I deleted as G4 in that the previous deletion criteria was still also in my mind valid. If you disagree let me know and we can look at bring either one back and going to AFD, regards. ^Khukri 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not being an admin I can't see the deleted versions, so I can't say whether it should be deleted, but my impression is that you are a reliable contributor, and if you think it should be deleted then it probably should. However, "deleted per a deletion discussion" does not mean "speedy deleted", so probably the reason you gave is not sound. I would not have raised this had it not been for the fact that the creator of the article has questioned your action, and I was trying to see what the history was, in order to be able to give him/her an accurate response. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problems at all. I know it's semantics even though it says discussion, I believe this is a pertinant part of G4 (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). Even though G11 and A7 would have both sufficed as deletion criteria for this article I was deliberately linking it to the previous article, to show it was a recreation, and also why I red linked both articles in the title here. Both articles can be found AEM Yorkshire and Advanced Engineering and Materials Yorkshire, let me know what you think. Cheers ^Khukri 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

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)

My mistake I thought you linked the tricolor, so my apology. Reverted it back to your version, though I think there have been a number of discussions, (will look tomorrow) and I have in my mind that that is the flag of the IRFU and not the team itself. Will have a look round and let you know what I find. Cheers ^Khukri 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers we are in no hurry, besides I'm busy myself too. Regards IJA (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I reposted a discussion at wikiproject rugby here to hopefully get it sorted. ^Khukri 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request non-deletion for Robert Louis Scharring-Hausen

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

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)

"Large" Hadron Collider joke

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)

No worries at all, I knew it wouldn't be for any malicious reasons. ;) Regards ^Khukri 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Delhi

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)

See Talk:Delhi ^Khukri 18:40, 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)

Not a problem at all I have no problems with anyone asking why or giving me feedback. I find we are too quick to pull the nuclear option and block when there is no real threat of disruption to the encyclopedia. As I arrived I reverted the edit and from there on there was no further edits to the article. If there is no further disruption there is no need to block as any block afterwards would be on my part punitive, which is wrong. Unfortunately I always try to assume good faith and talk editors into discussion, and in future I would do no different. I fully appreciate from your position as an editor involved in an article how my actions were frustrating, I also understand it from the other editors position. I believe the editor did try to explain why (with sources in the end) he thought his edit was juste, just he didn't know how to do it the Wikipedia way, hence the reason I gave him leeway as there were no more edits to the article there was no disruption. I would rather try and gain a constructive editor than alienating someone at their possibly first edit just because they don't know how, and I sincerely hope a regular at the article now tries to continue dialogue. I'm sorry this isn't how you would act and may seem too liberal or nicey nicey but if you think my actions were incorrect, I have no problems with someone else taking a look and if deemed 'correct' blocks being applied. Sorry ^Khukri 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also though I'd better just clarify I didn't come to this via the admin noticeboard, I was wandering around reading stuff when I stumbled on edit war, hence I didn't have the full details that you presented at EW. This is why I didn't block retroactively and by the time I saw your report and commented I was watching it I thought giving a block would have been punitive. ^Khukri 19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"I was wandering around ... presented at EW" :That does place your conduct in a different light and I can understand it better. For example, it is simply not true that "I believe the editor did try to explain why (with sources in the end) he thought his edit was juste" because the source has nothing to do with the edit the editor was making, and as you can still see in the user and article talk page, I and other editors already tried to continue the dialog, which the editor ignored, choosing to edit war instead.

To summarize my earlier point: I have no issues with an admin being "liberal or nicey nicey" (for example by taking the time to explain wikipedia dos-and-donts to a new editor); my problem is with admins making liberal and presumptuous use of other editors' time, for example, by giving a disruptive editor umpteen opportunities and last warning, which just means that regular editors have to continue dealing with the problems. As I learned to appreciate a few years back at a teaching seminar: a professor has to be careful in giving special consideration to a student, because while providing extra-help or lenient grading may make the professor feel warm and magnanimous, it is unfair to other students who have put made use of the regular resources and followed the standard rules. The analogy is not perfect, but this discussion is just meant to be food-for-thought. Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fully conscious though that my actions may seem to denigrate the previous input you had, and I would like to stress that was never my intention. ^Khukri 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

hey you guys why you both are pulling each others' legs. I just want to make things better. and why you think my edit was not what i initially intended. i must let you know that i'm not gonna delete "dilli" but i just want to put it in a right way. have you see other articles. is it appropriate to present an article this ugly way. and many things in this article are out of place.

so sorry for my contributions. i think i better start a new article on much better things. thanks mr (talk) for your efforts and thank you Khukri ji. Bigsuperindia (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see Bigsuperindia though Abecedare and I have a difference of opinion it is through discussion that we gain a better understanding and learn, and in that regards I hope you will contribute to Wikipedia in a consensual manner, and I believe another editor has left you a reply at Talk:Delhi. Regards ^Khukri 20:38, 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)

No problems at all, I'll have a look through what they've been up to and try and get him/her to pull on the handbrake a bit, point them in the right direction. If I miss anything let me know. ^Khukri 07:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time I left the above comment the concerns I had in mind were uploading of a copyvio image, and NPOV and RS issues as in this edit. (Note that these two edits followed my attempt to explain copyright and RS requirements to him). These two issues still stand, but while I haven't examined his more recent edits closely, a cursory look indicates that he is developing editing skills well otherwise - which is always good news! So a little guidance could help him be a valuable long term contributor. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cuckoo monitor

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)

Cheers for that, I think the UN case is just more handwaving trying to gain press attention. Admittedly I don't know much about law but it strikes me as a similar stunt to doing a court case in Hawaii for something in Europe, just something for posturing, creating sensationalism and getting them more air time by pretending there's a case to answer. I think closer we get to 'startup II' there'll be more press time given to anyone crying wolf. If they were serious about trying to stop the LHC they would have done it in france or switzerland, with a proper legal team but as you know it's all for show with hollow science. Anyways cheers for the info, and keep me posted, I stopped being as watchful of the internet BS when Tankersly disappeared. Cheers ^Khukri 11:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing some background internet reading on the protagonists and was sent this which though biased does raise some interesting questions. ^Khukri 13:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for the barnstar!

He had to be the most boring vandal I've seen in weeks. Thanks again! --NellieBly (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Khukri. What's up? E104421 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the courtesy of notifying me about the TfD. It's appreciated. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Anytime, I know you put effort into it and the prior discussions, I really hate the thought of treading on people toes, and in the end everyone is entitled to their opinion. Best regards. ^Khukri 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

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)

Hi it was deleted over two years ago as spam and it had had previous copyright violations. Regards ^Khukri 10:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single

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)

Thanks for the courtesy message, can be speedied. Regards ^Khukri 16:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Emptying category

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)

Can you show me the guideline where it states, that this is the case even if the information contained within the category is blatantly incorrect? None of the other names on the list (which can be found on in my talk page as rollbacks) are an official of CERN. Though with this in mind I will revert my removal of the DG's from the list. ^Khukri 08:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If they are "blatantly incorrect", as for example when the people in question would work at NASA instead of at CERN, there would be no problem removing them. But if the question is whether they are researchers, officials, workers or otherwise connected, that is covered by not emptying a category under discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but thanks for pointing it out. ^Khukri 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed only my understanding of the issue. :) But since that I have been active on WP:CFD for half a year now, I feel sure this opinion of mine is not far from consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Favour

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)

Non Free Images in your User Space

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)

Non Free Images in your User Space

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.

• See a log of images removed today here

• Shut off the bot here

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for consensus/conclusion to current Ireland rugby union team icon

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)

Linking thx

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)

Semi-prot request

Please see Talk:Large_Hadron_Collider#Edit_request_from_Ldlow.2C_30_March_2010, cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just replying now. ^Khukri 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. I thought it worth a discussion.  Chzz  ►  11:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

IRFU

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's Complaint??

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)

Hi Bill, I'm away on holiday at the moment, so can't jump in till tuesday at the earliest. But simply our technology and terminology has evolved over the years, and I'm inclined to agree it's inclusion should be notable to warrant it OR it is included in such a way to show that it's a terminology no longer used outside of tabloid headlines. I'll look back on Tuesday. Take care ^Khukri 15:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Forgive the intrusion) I like the latter idea, per stuffed tigers - if the term is in reasonably common use, albeit by tabloids, then it behooves Wikipedia to clarify.  Chzz  ►  20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I think it can wait a bit for wider comment. I may post an request for comment about it on the physics project page. Wwheaton (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bill just had first 5 minutes free to look through the history etc. The statement itself as it stands now I think is OK and I think it could be expanded to include that it is sometimes still used by tabloids. My only niggle is the fact it's in the lede to the article, this is where the scope of the article in defined, in much the same terms as a papers abstract. I personally don't think this is a defining point to the article or to particle accelerators in general and would suggest it should be moved into the article in maybe the history section. If you want me to do it myself or if you agree just WP:BOLD and go for it. Cheers ^Khukri 07:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the history section is the place for it, not the lead. Something more for my list. Thanks! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

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)

ComicRack

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, when I originally deleted the article it was just used as a link to their website and was deemed to be only used as spam/advertisting. If you intend to create an encyclopedic article for comicrack that meets wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies then I have no problems at all. I would suggest writing the article in your own user space and get good third party sources, build the article there then it can be moved over. If you need any help don't hesitate to ask. Cheers ^Khukri 19:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now created a sample article in my user page. I took the layout from other comparable software entries. I tried to keep it small and not include any marketing talk (how good it is blabla :)) I added the reference list to articles about ComicRack on the best known sites (pcworld etc.). I did not upload any media files. So the logo and screenshot is missing. It would be nice if you could look at it.--Solano2k (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it off your front page, and will take a deeper look at it this evening, no problems. Cheers ^Khukri 12:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I've had a look through and as it stands it doesn't show why this product is notable. You may know it, but for the article to survive in article space you need to show clearly to other editors why this reader is notable using verifiable sources. I would say only the PCworld article is a good source though still a promo piece, but the fact it uses wording like aspiring etc without giving any impact on the market or that it has been a success etc is telling. See if you can find some other sources and if it was any good with the amount of comic paraphernalia out there it shouldn't be too hard to find something in related journals, but I'm seeing just a lot of download sites and a few blogs at the moment, though will keep looking. ^Khukri 17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Rugby

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)

Murray Gell-Mann

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)

Hi, I reverted it primarily because it wasn't verified or reliably sourced and the fact it is your personal experience makes it original research. I have no problems with personal anecdotes about someone so long as it doesn't fall foul of WP:BLP and can be referenced. I sympathies about the comparison page, this is at a systems level of Wikipedia, which I have no control over. Have you tried changing the skin type under appearances in my preferences? You may find one there that might make your editing easier. Regards ^Khukri 06:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)