User talk:Hryun

Image Tagging for Image:Tcp-eng.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Tcp-eng.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating a page

If you want to recreate a page which has been deleted already, you have to put it up at the Wikipedia:Deletion review. You can try to claim that it is a "totally new" page but it isn't going to fool anybody that you're essentially recreating the same content. --Fastfission 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--ScienceApologist 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I refrain from reverting pages. But do not threaten me with blocking. I am strong enough to overcome protection here. If you do not believe, just block me, and you will see. Hryun 18:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You're on thin ice, buddy. We've seen all of the tricks people use to get around blocking a million times before, so don't think you're being very clever. --Fastfission 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The certainty principle (discussion)

Part I (excerption)

This Certain Elephant should be used to award people who bring good new ideas to WP.

This Uncertain Elephant should be used to award people who defend WP from the influence of “original research” too seriously.

Oppose, not a good idea to have an award for bad behaviour. I'm guessing this is suppose to cut down on bad behaviour, but I'm quite sure that in some situations this may have the opposite effect, and in other situations it just ends up spreading badwill.--P-Chan 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain whose behavior you call bad, Slicky or Bduke? They both had good intentions and both wanted to make WP better. The problem is that Bduke believes that materials in WP must be taken from a "reputable" (i. e. American, or, in the worst case, Western) journal. Slicky believes that only content and importance of materials should be taken into account, and all scientists (including those from poor countries, which do not spend substantial money for PR) have the right to participate in the world science process. So, who of them is right? Rcq 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not believe anything of the kind. I have taught science in two universities in non-western countries, I do not come from America and I do not believe American sources are more reputable than other sources. The difference is that I follow Wikipedia policies and these do not allow "original research" and insist that verifiable sources have to be cited at least for anything that may be disputed. If Slicky really does believe what you say, then he is of course entitled to believe it, but it should not be used as a basis for editing Wikipedia. I think Rcq wants to change Wikipedia policies. These "awards" are not the way to go about it. Slicky's behaviour is not bad. He was just not following the policies for creating articles on wikipedia, so the article was deleted in good faith. --Bduke 00:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, dear Bduke, you just do not understand what you believe in. For example, the article Uncertainty principle is mainly based on the "original researches" of Heisenberg, Kennard, and Robertson. And that article, formally, violates WP policy. Why do not you suggest to delete it? The papers of Arbatsky are more "verifiable", just because they are more accessible. And it is very likely that, at the moment, there are more alive people, who have read his papers. And nobody, including you, have disputed their contents. Do not fight with Elephants. They are stronger than you. ;-))) Rcq 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (1) Here "good new ideas" does not mean "OR". Unfortunately, in most cases, when somebody brings OR to WP, those ideas are not good. So, note, Certain Elephant is only for those, who bring good new ideas. (2) Uncertain Elephant was accepted by Khoikhoi, who likes the award. (3) I do not insist that the awards should be used widely in WP. As regards Bduke, the award was really deserved. :-) (4) As regards OR, I do not believe that the term is well-defined. I talked to Arbatsky (the author of the certainty principle)... Yes, it was kind of local publication, which does not really differ from self-publication. And what does it prove? The humankind will have to accept it, whether you like it or not. Rcq 00:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; there seems to be a major misunderstanding of exactly what OR means; Uncertainty principle is in Wikipedia because it has been independently verified by peer review. Had Messrs. Heisenberg and Kennard posted uncertainty principle to Wikipedia instead of getting it peer reviewed, it would have been deleted. Telling people to Ignore All Rules is one thing; rewarding them for it is quite another. Besides which, encouraging people to post their original research to Wikipedia is effectively encouraging them to give up any patent/intellectual property rights they may be entitled (most patents are invalid if the information is already available to the public). smurrayinchester^(Talk) 15:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is you, who has misunderstanding of something (or, in fact, of many things). (1) Arbatsky's papers are already published (they are publicly available, in juridical sense). And, as far as I know, he does not want to patent anything in them. (2) As far as I know, Arbatsky is not Slicky (who created the article in WP). (3) The papers were peer reviewed. How do you want to measure the "independence" of that peer review? In fact, you imply that the papers were not peer reviewed by referees from a "reputable" journal. But, as you can see from above, even Bduke cannot explain, which journals should be considered "reputable". Maybe you can? Your opinion is welcome. ;-) Rcq 20:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in continuing this debate, but I will leave it with a final point. Arbatsky's papers are publically available, but they have only been published, as far as I can see, in a self-publishing manner. There is no formal peer review. If you believe there was please state who exactly peer reviewed it and what was the consequence. It could of course have been peer reviewed for a scientific journal and rejected. His home page gives web links to the papers. It does not give links to any publication in a scientific journal, whether a reputable one or not. This is why the article was OR in the way that the uncertainty principle most certainly is not OR. This is not the place to argue whether Arbatsky is correct. If he is, he will publish it in a proper scientific journal and then someone can recreate the article citing the journal article. Also note that I was not asked to state what a reputable journal was. I was merely countering the assertion that I thought they were American journals. --Bduke 23:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I have come up with a theory that Tony Blair and Lionel Blair are the same person. I can come up with plenty of evidence (they've never been seen in the same room together, they're both male, they're both called Blair), but every peer-reviewed journal I've gone to has turned me down telling me that "this is a load of rubbish". Should I bring this new idea to Wikipedia? Should I be awarded a certain elephant for this? If another Wikipedian deletes this information, should they be punished with an uncertain elephant? (Incidently, for what counts as a reputable journal, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Which science journals are reputable?). smurrayinchester^(Talk) 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If you really believe in the "idential Blairs theory" you can, of course, bring it to WP. But it is likely that other Wikipedians will say that "this is a load of rubbish" and will ask the proof. You will show your proofs, and it is unlikely that you would persuade anybody. Your article will be deleted, just because your idea is not good. And it is unlikely, that anybody would grant you the CE award. You can, of course, award your opponents UE, but the award will not be well-deserved in this case. (2) In the case of the certainty principle situation is completely different. The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof was published, and you can check it yourself. In fact, at least hundreds (more likely, thousands) of specialists have read it. Nobody has objections. As you can see, even Bduke agrees that the certainty principle "seems reasonable enough". It was deleted only because it is "original research". But, for example, Pythagorean Theorem is also "original research". And what does it proove? (3) UE cannot be considered "punishment": nobody can be forced to accept it. (4) As I said, the certainty principle was absolutely formally published. The publisher was Ch. Pyzhik, the journal was "Fontanka physics". Who exactly was the referee is kept in secret, as in other journals. The conclusion of the peer review was that papers are of very high quality, and they should be published. Rcq 15:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not understand the WP policy on OR. Pythagorean Theorem is NOT "original research".

Part II

The journal "Fontanka physics" - please give a full citation for the paper. Give full details of this journal. I can find no reference to it on Google or Google Scholar. The first dozen or so references combine "Physics" with what appears to be a street called "Fontanka". Putting the two together as "Fontanka Physics" or "Fontanka physics" gives no hits on either Google or Google Scholar. At this stage it is not looking reputable. These days, I think one measure of a reputable journal is that you can quickly find a table of contents on the web using Google, but I do understand that some journals have not yet been able to do this.

I have not seen a mention of this before. It does not appear to be on Arbatsky's web page, but I could have missed it. I do not think it was cited on the WP article "Certainty Principle". If it had it might not have been deleted. I understand that you do not know the referees or their comments. Having said all this, it seems to me that if the Certainty Principle was notable and a real advance in physics, it would by now be more widely cited in the scientific literature. --Bduke 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is Russian government, who has to know about the journal, not Google. The full citation is not a problem. If you think that the journal is not "reputable" - you can think so. (2) In contrast, the question of notability is important. Here I completely agree with you. But you can go to the article Uncertainty principle and read the section "Energy, time and further generalizations". If you have objections against the content, you can start a discussion there. If you agree, then you have to agree that the certainty principle is notable. (The certainty principle for Elephants is also recommended.) (3) I still do not understand why Pythagorean theorem is not "original research". Rcq 14:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, stop avoiding the question or I will cease this discussion which I brought here in good faith. Give me details of the journal so I can track it down and give the cite of the article - Volume, Year, Pages. I do not know whether it is reputable because I know nothing about it. Being Russian is not a problem - see Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry. That is a reputable Russian journal. I want to find out whether it is reputable. It is not listed in List of scientific journals in physics for example, although that list is very short compared with the corresponding chemistry list which I have worked on. Second, while I do understand quantum mechanics, I am actually a quantum chemist and I am not familiar with the literature around mathematical quantum theory with particular reference to the uncertainty principle. I therefore am probably not in a position to judge whether the article is wrong, or perhaps trivial, or correct and/or notable. Third, it does not help that I have been unable to load the pdf version in my Adobe reader. Forth, the Pythagorean theorem or as you used earlier, the Uncertainty principle and whether they are original research. WP works as do other encyclopedias by collecting together the world's knowledge. It needs sources. The Pythagorean theorem is of course widely known and is described in many books and articles. In WP we summarise what they say. That is why it is not OR. In the case of the Certainty principle, we had one self-published article. Above, you are asking me to assess whether it is notable. You are asking me to do OR. What we need is a report from someone who has done that OR. If I did it and published it in a review article, we could say "B Duke reviews the recent theorem of Arbatsky, and concludes that it is a valuable advance leading to greater understanding of the Uncertainty principle." With cites that would be sufficient to make the certainty principle not OR. This is why the reference to the Journal article may be important and it was never, to my knowledge, mentioned previously. I thought another poster earlier did a good job in explaining to you why the Uncertainty principle is not OR. The point is that all science was originally original research at one time, but we report what others say about it so we have a consensus of what the world thinks about it. Read WP:OR but note how it links "not OR" to verifibility. We have no source that verifies what Arbatsky wrote.

Sorry. I did not sign this. It was 23:31, 28 May, 2006. (UTC) Bduke

(2) Nobody avoids the question. I just do not have the journal in my arms. But if you cannot find the journal, you certainly will not be able to find the article. (3) As far as I know, in Russia, like in many other free countries, everybody can print a journal and it has the same (legal) status as many others. Nobody has to register them in Wikipedia. (4) If you are not a specialist in the question, why do you think that it is your duty "to defend young minds from the pestilent influence" of the certainty principle? Possibly, when you voted for deletion of the article, you were right, in the sense that some decision had to be expressed, and nobody said (on the discussion page) anything more reasonable. But currently you are free to cease the discussion. I will just invite other people from the Uncertainty principle. If they have something to add, the discussion will be continued. If not, I will start the voting on reinstatement of the article. (Do not want to avoid this process.) (5) What version of Adobe Reader do you use? I have downloaded both articles from the site and checked them in Adobe Reader 6.0.1 03.11.2003. They look perfectly. (6) Currently, the certainty principle is already "the world's knowledge". Even the author cannot change it. If you mean that it is not "widely known", then you can ask your friends (not physicists) about the Uncertainty principle. You will find that, unlike Pythagorean theorem, it is "almost unknown"... It is not an argument. (7) "We have no source that verifies what Arbatsky wrote." Possibly, you are right. To some extent I support your concern. On the other hand, the topic cannot be suppressed for this reason only. There are more than enough competent specialists in the question in WP, who can criticize the article. If somebody does it, then the arguments of "notability" and "verifiability" can be considered as additional. And only if discussion becomes non-constructive. But currently the CP should be considered just as an "obvious fact", like 2*2 = 4, or maybe as something a little more complicated. WP policy allows such facts. (8) If the article is really redundant, the worst thing that can happen is that this article will be "isolated" (with no incoming links). There are a lot of such articles, including those with OR. Nobody will attend it. Then it will be removed by robot. But currently, from purely technical point of view, the situation is worse, because the article about the Uncertainty principle contains importat piece of text that contains important external links. Those links can be easily broken. Rcq 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re your points:-

(3) Then the article is clearly published in a non-established journal. It remains self-published. How do we know it was refereed? How do we know how referees are selected? There are reputable established journals in Russia as I indicated. It is clear that the journal you refer to is not one of them. It is not a valid source on WP. If Arbatsky's work is notable and important it would be accepted by a decent journal. Why has he not submitted it to one, or has he and it was rejected? I would certainly not self-publish something if it was acceptable in the Journal of Chemical Physics or a similar journal.
(4) When did I state "to defend young minds from the pestilent influence"?
(4) Where do you propose to have a vote about reinstalling the article? Deletion Review is the place, but I suspect you will get a massive majority there to not change the original decision to delete the article. As things stand, it is quite clear that the certainty principle does not meet WP's rules and policies and I'm afraid nothing you have said changes that.
(5) Adobe - not sure, but updates do not work on my Windows 2000 on this laptop which is old. I'll look on another machine.
(6) The uncertainty principle is extremely widely known in modern western culture although often misunderstood. The certainty principle is not well known.
(7) WP is not a collection of facts.
(8) It is not clear to me that Uncertainty principle should contain a link to Arbatsky's work, as it is not verified, but I'm not going to remove it.
I advise you to not waste your time trying to recreate this article. Is it very likely to be speedy deleted without going to AfD. You have not stated anything that would alter the debate if it was to go to AfD. At the very least do not try to recreate it until the concept has a valid source, such as an article in a reputable established journal. --Bduke 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers of Rcq:

Let me start from the last question, the question of time. Probably, you do not understand it well, and you do not understand well what official WP policy is. From technical point of view, working many people on the same article is "editor war". We usually do not call it so, when there is no serious ideological collision. If such a collision happens, which side wins? Technically, those side, whose operations are less time-consuming (including time of administrators). What is WP policy? It is a set of recommendations on how to make the battle more constructive and more productive. Nothing more. I think that in the re-creation/deletion conflict I am stronger than the WP community. I do not want to go this way immediately, because I want to re-instate the article, not to re-create. Frankly speaking, the deleted article was not good at all. But I want to re-instate its history. Nothing more.
Do not call the journal "non-established". It is formally established. You can use subjective word "non-reputable" (which I do not approve, in fact).
We do not actually know how papers are refereed in "reputable" journals. What they write in their official documents is something completely different from what they do in reality.
Quotation marks are not necessarily used for citations. They are used also to show irony. Sorry, if it was confusing here.
Do not talk about "massive majority". Currently, I see only one opponent - you. I invited others to participate in the discussion, but it seems, they do not want. What is more, I know several highly qualified editors of Uncertainty principle who are competent more than enough to understand the certainty principle. I am pretty sure that they have read the papers. And, as you can see, they do not have objections. Rcq 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of Rcq for everybody:

As we can see from the above discussion, the only active opponent, Bduke, have not even seen the original papers about the certainty principle, because he had technical problems with Adobe Reader. But on the discussion page he wrote that he "have read eveything here". We do not know, what he meant, but definitely this could lead to incorrect decision... Rcq 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read enough of the work to see that it was original research and not verified by any other source. I do not think I have ever commented on the truth of the material. It was deleted as OR and there are still no verifiable sources, other than the original author. I see you still have not given anyone a proper citation to the article you claim is in a Russian journal. While you do not, I will only correct misinterpretations of what I have said. --Bduke 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part III

Is this indeed, as this new article claims, "more fundamental and general than the uncertainty principle" for which "many attempts were made to formulate it mathematically, but they were not successful"? --Lambiam ^Talk 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the work of one researcher, from what I can see from the article. No idea if it's notable, much less correct. I've stuck an "expert attention" tag on it to get it to show up on the PNA list. --Christopher Thomas 02:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly needs carefull consideration. I draw you attention to several points.

This article did exist and was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle.
User:Rcq created two awards to praise the author of the original "Certainty Principle" article, and, in affect, criticise those who were involved in the deletion process, even when they did not actually vote for its deletion. See Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Certain and Uncertain Elephants and User talk:Rcq. Note particularly that he states on his talk page: "I think that in the re-creation/deletion conflict I am stronger than the WP community". That is with specific reference to this article.
This article was created by User:Hryun and modified by an anon editor from 195.177.120.40. I note that both the anon IP address and user Hryun have both only edited this article and related stuff - Hryun's user page and reference to the certainty principle on Uncertainty principle. I think someone with checkuser privileges should check whether Hryun is a sockpuppet of Rcq.
I note that the article now does give a reference to two papers in a Russian journal that Rcq mentioned on his talk page but never properly cited. However, It is so obscure that I do not know how to start looking for it.

If this article is important then the originator, Arbatsky, has gone about things in a very odd way with the results of his work only published as self-publishing or in an obscure journal.
If the work is not important or even wrong, then it should be speedy deleted by an admin as it is creating an article that was deleted after a AfD discussion.
I would like to read the original article but I can not read the pdf files mentioned. However, after argueing with Rcq about his elephant awards I am rather exhausted by this process and here in the Physics community is the best place for this to be sorted out. --Bduke 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been edited into Uncertainty principle. Googling "Certainty principle" Arbatsky returns 115 hits, many of them wikipedia clones. Not impressive for something "more fundamental then the uncertainty principle". Zarniwoot 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article has already been deleted, then the present version can be speedied as a recreation of deleted content. I'm hesitant to do this without first checking with most of the lurkers here, though, to see if the researcher cited has been vocal enough to merit mention (albeit likely with an appropriate heavy disclaimer on the article). As for sock checking, it can be requested at WP:RCU, but my reading of WP:SOCK suggests that there isn't currently grounds for it (no vandalism or vote-stacking being done). Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. --Christopher Thomas 04:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around at this and concluded that a) this was a recreation of deleted material, and b) all of :the reasons for deletion are applicable still (non-notable, misrepresented subject). Since I am an admin, I will delete it now. -- SCZenz 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that one person may be using multiple accounts to add legitimacy to these additions. If that user also uses those accounts to violate 3RR, then a sock check might be in order. In the meantime, I'd ask everyone to keep an eye on Uncertainty principle to make sure that this rubbish isn't reintroduced. -- SCZenz 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Arbatsky references have entered about 40 of our physics articles [1]. As he is essentially an unicted author [2], I suggest we just summarily rervert all references to Arbatsky in all articles. --Pjacobi 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Even if this were seriously peer-reviewed research, new research does not go in articles on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Fortunately, there are not so many physics articles on that google list as one might fear, and there is apparently more than one Arbatsky. -- SCZenz 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, (1) the new article was not a re-creation of the old one, the content was very different, (2) I have seen a long discussion on the page User_talk:Rcq and found that, according to WP policy, there is no reason to wait for reinstatement of the article (the arguments of RCQ about reinstatement of the history are incorrect). So I created a new one. (3) All talks about whether Arbatsky and the journal are "well-known" or "not-well-known" are just demagogy and nothing more. (4) An opinion of a specialist is welcome. If somebody has objections about the certainty principle, on the purely scientific ground, you are welcome to discuss them. Hryun 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "demogogy", it's a crucial part of our policies on not giving people with fringe theories a soapbox (a key part of our WP:NOR policy). Arbatsky can get a page on here for his theory once others accept it. Wikipedia is not a place to launch new investigations, which is what is pretty clear what is being attempted here. --Fastfission 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for scientific discussions of validity. We are doing inclusion decisions on purely formal grounds. --Pjacobi 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my friends. And I completely agree with you. But this topic was already discussed on the page User_talk:Rcq. Hryun 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't recreate the article until it has appeared in a scientific journal that we can find some information on—it's not an unreasonable request, since essentially all journals in physics have (at least) their abstracts on the internet. Until that happens, I think the reasons for the original deletion of the article remain valid, and so the article can be deleted as the recreation of deleted content. -- SCZenz 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. If an article has been published in a not-well-known journal, you cannot use this only fact against it. (2) I do not want to make more problems here than necessary. I am open for a civil discussion. (3) I do not want to waste time of administrators more than necessary. But please, do not ask me to agree with obscurants. If you cannot say anything more wise, we will have a battle here. Sorry. Hryun 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're only asking for any verifiable information on the journal at all—can you provide that? As for your last sentence, please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to appeal the original deletion, please do so at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I even can send an issue of the journal to you. But it is expensive... (2) I hope that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". This is why you must accept the article. (3) If you really care about the content, you can place some appropriate tag on the article (something about "neutrality" or "POV"). I will not remove it. (4) The original article was created not by me, but by User:Slicky. The content was very different. Hryun 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, I am waiting... On my talk page I explained to ScienceApologist that you will not be able to block my access to WP. And in direct creation/deletion battle I will win. So, I ask you to suggest something more wise than you already have written above. Do not try to just ignore me. Thank you. Hryun 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats to override community consensus are just plain rude; I think you may somewhat overestimate your own cleverness, or underestimate Wikipedia's experience at dealing with trolls, but it really doesn't matter. Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review if you don't like what we're saying here—in all honesty, if you can give the details of the journal publication, you might have a case for further discussion of the article. -- SCZenz 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I do not want to be rude, but I do not see any comunity consensus. I see only several people, who break WP policy in an attept to suppress article on the subject, in which they are incompetent. (2) What do you suggest me to write on the Deletion Review page? I do not have anything to add. Everything has been said, everything has been discussed. You deleted the article against WP policy. (3) As regards my cleverness. I know that the battle will be long and difficult. It is not something that can be solved in one day, and possibly in one month. The main result of the battle will be not reinstatement of the article, but your recognition that you break WP policy, not me. (4) But I do not want to go this way at all. I hope that you will pay a little more attention to the details of the situation, recognize that situation is unusual, and recognize that in this very specific situation you just are not right. (5) I also recommend you to ask some independent expert in the subject. With best wishes, Hryun 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of taking it to deletion review is that you'll get a new audience. Since there are just a few of us who are breaking Wikipedia policy, as you see it, then getting two dozen more people to look at it ought to help you. They'll correct us if they think we're wrong. -- SCZenz 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only person trying to override consensus is yourself. Making idle threats about attempts to subvert policies is not a way to convince anyone; it is rather an almost sure-fire way to get yourself blocked on here. People have told you a few times what you should do if you want to get this article on here. If you don't or can't do either of those things, the article will not exist. I think people have been pretty patient with you, despite your arrogance and insults. --Fastfission 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more threats

Multiple times you've threatened to evade consensus and Wikipedia policies[3][4][5]. Stop doing it, now. Decisions about content on Wikipedia are not made by threatening to engage in edit wars, vandalism, or other disruptive editing habits. If you persist, you and all of your sockpuppets will be indefinitely blocked. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Wikipedia has put up with vandals of all shapes and forms before, with people trying to insert their own theories into articles, with persistent and malicious editors. We have easy ways to deal with this, ranging from quick reversion, blocking accounts and IP addresses, and locking articles from edits from newly created accounts, among others. Nobody cares about your "threats", except as they consistute a breach of acceptable behavior. So knock it off, now. Consider this your final warning on the subject. --Fastfission 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the "3RR" section above. Hryun 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've blocked you and your obvious socks for disruption. I've protected some of our articles from edits by any new socks you create and will simply delete any content you try to add to push your daft OR non article. This is an encylopedia not a playground and we will not be bullied. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lontax (talk · contribs) another sock? Noisy | Talk 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]