User talk:Count Iblis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Matter

Thanks for your edits to my edits to the Dark Matter page. You are right that it is only if you assume that Dark Matter is a neutralino that the Dama resuts are ruled out. But in that case, the results I saw at December's "Texas" Astrophysics Conference at Stanford really had ruled out the Dama results. That is why I felt compelled to have a more skeptical statement about Dama in the Dark Matter Article. Thanks. -- FrankH 05:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Frank, The results presented at that conference sound very interesting! Let me know when the proceedings become available. It was already known that spin independent couplings are almost certainly ruled out. Spin dependent couplings are problematic because of negative results from Superkamionkande searching for neutrinos generated by neutralino annihilations in the Sun.

There have also been other suggestions like here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309115

Also, I have started a page on the DAMA/NaI experiment. If you find any articles on DAMA/NaI you should edit that page too.

[edit] Hadrons

Hadrons (exotic or otherwise) are not just baryons. --Bambaiah 14:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I had it at the back of my mind to edit the article on hadrons to include introductory bits about standard model exotics, and then linking to exotic mesons and baryons. One of the reasons, as you pointed out: the H-dibaryon is a meson by spin, and hence its classification among baryons is a mystery unless you already know about baryon number. --Bambaiah 09:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP blocked

I don't see any blocks against 62.238.255.* in the last 200 blocks made, and 62.238.255.224 itself is not blocked. What is the exact message you see when you try to edit with that IP? Angela . 05:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remark

Thank you for your categorization work. And one remark, it is good if you put an edit summary when you contribute. It really helps other people who see your contributions on the watchlist or the recent changes. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. Probably a good call on what to do if Lubos ever applied, too... ;-) -- SCZenz 18:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entropy, Arrow of time, and Energy Conservation

Hi, there. Citing it as inaccurate, you removed the assertion that the first law of thermodynamics is incompatable with the second law from the gravitational interaction of antimatter article. Could you elaborate on why? It seems that since the second law defines an arrow of time it would imply energy nonconservation by Noether's theorem. -- Intangir 05:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it :) -- Intangir 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda? I think not

I have seen the recent edits on the global warming page with regard to removing edits contrary to the "generally" accepted view that global warming is happening. I highly suggest you do some research before removing valid information. You can read the bottom two sections on that page's talk page for more info and here are some starting point articles.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5288.pdf

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

http://www.cei.org/pdf/2317.pdf

Ergzay 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the most accurate predictor of hurricanes, Dr. Bill Gray from Colorado State University, agreeing with this all if it is not true? He is the standard for hurricane prediction. If the person who knows the MOST about hurricanes is saying that global warming is not causing anything worse and people who know less about hurricanes say that global warming is, then who would you trust, the majority or the more knowledgeable? If he was wrong then his hurricane predictions could not be more accurate as others say that global warming affects hurricanes.

I also might add that a majority of scientists have their careers in global warming research and they WANT it to be true. There is quite a large lockout on peer-reviewed journals from contrary research from being put into them. As you should well know the competition to get into such articles is very fierce. I doubt I could find such articles. I also must add that many scientists fear for losing their job if they vocalize their concern in global warming. And one more thing, the leading scientific community admits themselves that they have a highly liberal bias.

Ergzay 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist cats

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know. I'm afraid that I'm going to make a whole lot of enemies getting into this mess. ;) —Khoikhoi 07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Careful

As the inserted comments are not obvious vandalism, you will need to revert yourself to avoid being in violation of the 3rr. Since you are obviously makig good faith reversions, it is unlikely that anyone would report you, but it's best to toe the line. I'll take care of the current problem user. Jefffire 13:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I reported the user in question for 3rr violation. you can watch the situtation here. I made note that you had also breached it, but probably would have self reverted if given the chance, and showed no signs of repeating the error. Jefffire 14:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv. to latest version endorsed by William M. Connolley

Oooohhh I like it :-) Thanks. William M. Connolley 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropogenic global warming

This article is the subject of a discussion. Putting a redirection in place now might confuse people because they would be directed to the Global Warming article and simply vote "Keep". It's usual to leave articles in place which are under discussion. BalfourCentre 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change To Suicide Terrorist Act Terminology

FWIW: I agree with your change in terminology from suicide terrorist acts to suicide attacks given the context of this article.

Jonexsyd 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Have responded your latest on my talk page.

Jonexsyd 23:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? Hezbollah is a terrorist group and to deny make you as deluded as Cindy Sheehan.Tannim 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute at Global warming

In general, when someone places a {pov} tag and gives reasons on the discussion page, you should not remove the tag immediately. Please join the discussion at Talk:Global warming. --Uncle Ed 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heim Theory

Thanks for doing the rewrite—I had aspired to do that, but never got to it. I'll keep an eye out. — SCZenz 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not altogether true to say that there is no shred of evidence. Several physicists (the Heim-theory group, Droscher and a few others) have spent the year or more of intense study needed to understand the theory from the books and say that they perceive the logic therein. The fact that the mass formula gets so close to actual measured values is another sign that the logic may indeed lead to a remarkable result. Though the full derivation of the mass formula may take some years to sort out – hopefully not as long as Fermat’s last theorem. Also, Droscher & Heim’s reproduction of standard model particle properties using the hermetry forms is a another indication of authenticity – the modified Tajmar experiment suggested by Hauser & Droscher may confirm that their calculations’ predictions of the gravito-magnetic effect are correct. Haiko Lietz *NewScientist article) yesterday forwarded a proposal to test the Heim-Lorentz force with a laser interferometry set-up that would be much cheaper than previous suggestions. It came form someone at TU University Berlin and looks quite competent. Thus we may be not far from a thick shred of evidence. --hughey 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selector Calculus

Mr Diablo. You had no right to kill the article. It went thru a deletion process, if i recall that failed. But now you have killed it thru a redirect. Kindly put it back like it was. I guess you don't self-call yourself the "devil" for nothing. Best Wishes. Will314159 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you admit it survived the VFD yet you circumvented that vote. Not nice. Best Wishes. Will314159 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policide

Hi Count,

I've taken a pass at policide to see if I could move it in the right direction. Would you mind taking a look at the current version and telling me what you think? Thanks, TheronJ 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Count. I understand your point, although I'm on the fence between "AFD shouldn't be a speedy request for cleanup" and "articles that have nothing going for them should be deleted, and if someone wants to start a good article later, go for it." I'm still chewing over both arguments, but I appreciate you bringing the policide article up for review and your willingness to take another look. TheronJ 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Should it perhaps be merged with Politicide? Palmiro | Talk 15:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third holiest site in Islam AfD debate

I've nominated this article for deletion Third_holiest_site_in_Islam, and would appreciate your comments on the matter.--Amerique 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Count,

I have a feeling this is not going to be sucessfull, but at least we will have brought more critical attention to the article.--Amerique 20:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding journal abbreviations

Thanks for the response; just to clarify, in medical articles, we have PMIDs - a government database which gives all info. Do you object to the abbreviations, for example, I've used at Tourette syndrome, and do you think the citations need to include full journal names? Sandy (Talk) 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Count: I was going to have a lot of work ahead of me if you suggested I needed to change them :-) Sandy (Talk) 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The word "Policide" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia

You said -> "...... fortunately the AFD nomination did at least have the effect that the article was made more NPOV. This article will be edited by people who are less involved with the POV issues regarding the Mid East, which is how it should be"

I don't see the benefit of making an article "more NPOV", when the word in question seems to have been invented for propaganda purposes. The word "policide" is apparently intended to mean just one thing, the "destruction of Israel".

There is a gap in the language, of course. We need a word for "turning a nation into a failed state" - but I'm not aware that Israel's neighbours are attempting to do that. I thought Israel's neighbours wanted "regime change", a perfectly proper word. Perhaps they want "genocide" as well, but we have a word for that practise too. (Actually, I suspect all they really want is for the people to be allowed back to their homes - but maybe that's such an outrageous demand that we're not allowed to invent a word for it).

Meanwhile, we need a word for what Israel has been doing, accidentally and deliberately. It's attempting to turn its neighbours into failed states. Flooding with brutalised refugees, targetting government facilities and police stations and airports. We need a word for the practise (Russia may be attempting the same thing in Chechnya, China in Tibet) - but I don't think an encyclopedia is the place to do this, it should be in a dictionary. PalestineRemembered 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal stereotyping

Is it your mission to enlighten the primitive creatures living on this planet (a.k.a. humans) with your infinite knowledge or is it your dirty arrogance that causes you to stereotype "Right-wing extremists"? What is it with liberal extremists that think they are so enlightened but stoop to the same level they think they are insulting?

"Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illumines it." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Durbinmj 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I missed the memo that Tannim was representative of all of us right-wing extremists. I didn't find your joke funny. Durbinmj 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/u/User_talk%7ECount_Iblis_e9d8.html"