User talk:Damiens.rf

This talk page is not a battle ground

Please, stay cool.

Image listed for deletion

In reply to your listing the image Image:Johan Helsingius.jpg for deletion: the original copyright message has been added with an added explanation on the copyright status. Please also see the comment on the Images and media for deletion page.

This should satisfy the standing guidelines, please un-list the image for deletion.

review

please review the article V (programming language)

Dwight Lauderdale

Damiens, I have no problem building an encyclopedia, in fact, this article has undergone many changes since I first posted it. All of which have gone through without any problems from me (even when I've disagreed with them!  :) ). Your edits, however, involve removal of referenced data, which is not supported by policy, that's why I keep reverting you. As the data itself is referenced by the article, in fact, word-for-word, it's inclusion is per policy. I am currently discussing this issue with Nishkid64 as well (not about your edits, but simply about the material itself). Thanks — Kosh ^Jumpgate 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Valenti

I have no idea why you seem to have such a big problem with the subject of this article, even keeping in mind your clashes with her on the article talk page. Nonetheless, your continued antics on this page - most recently moving a clearly verifiable and notable publication for no apparent reason - is inappropriate. Rebecca (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks apart, the book Jessica herself is trying to add to her own article is planned to be published in 2009 (not 2008 as she said). I don't think Wikipedia is the best venue for her promoting her upcoming works.

And by the way, why did she hide the name of Jaclyn Friedman, the main author? --Damiens.rf 23:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hi. I'm aware you've had disputes with User:Rebecca in the past but this is unnecessary given she's left Wikipedia. At best it only prolongs ill feeling over a past disagreement. Would you consider amending your goodbye message to something more neutral? Euryalus (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to John_Searl and Searl_Effect_Generator

Hello Damiens.rf,

i can not understand the reasons you give for your edits. The investigation by Heerfordt is exactly about Searl and his SEG, so i can not see how you can declare that as "unrelated". You might not like it's critical content, but still is about the Searl and his SEG.

The YouTube video simply shows what was printed in the newspapers. Feel free and request an archive copy to read it for yourself. To save other that work, the video should be seen as a courtesy. There are many more WP articles that refer to YT clips. So i really don't see what your point is, other than you might be uncomfortable with their critical content towards Searl.

Following your reasoning for the edits, both articles have to be deleted completely. After all, it could be considered pure self-promotion by Searl, and nothing of what is given as sources is really verifyable at all, let alone his claims to start with. The article is quite controversial, and it is purely pseudoscientific. This very nature makes it questionable. Therefore, any sources about the topic can be considered. Searl himself even acknowledges the very existence of Heerfordt, for example, so it really is related.

I'm going to revert your edits again now. Please discuss your proposed edits on the talk pages of the articles so that we can reach some consensus about them, before simply reverting it.

Greetings,

Chris --213.160.11.146 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)