User talk:72.183.125.111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome!

Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

--A. B. 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Welcome back and thanks for the USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN-709) update

[edit] Litvinenko

Wikipedia is not a place where we post public service announcements. That's why it doesn't go on the top. I'm moving it back down to where it properly belongs. Sorry I removed the info in the first place. It was only a few minutes later that I realized it was on the news, but then someone else had added it back to the bottom. Nishkid64 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, you're quite mistaken, Nishkid. During last year's hurricane in New Orleans, for instance, Wikipedians made a valiant effort to keep Wikipedia updated with relevant and timely information that was completely oriented toward a public service...which -- at it's core -- is what Wikipedia strives to be. --72.183.125.111 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see the relevant discussion at Talk:Alexander Litvinenko. The burden to assert why it should be included lies on you. The information is relevant to the investigation into Litvinenko's death, and should be included in the relevant section of the article. But the new development is not relevant to the person of Alexander Litvinenko, and as such does not belong in the intro of the article. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The information is clearly quite relevant to the person of Alexander Litvenenko, who is now deceased as a result of what British authorities are investigating and uncovering with some obvious success. This seems very matter-of-fact. --72.183.125.111 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the possible scenario that Litvinenko committed suicide, please join the discussion at Talk:Alexander Litvinenko#Police investigating suicide. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I really wouldn't have any time for that sort of very ill-founded speculation. In my opinion, it is fairly transparent propaganda. --72.183.125.111 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the British Airways section thinking it hadn't made the news, and I even apologized for doing that unknowingly. However, you added it to the top of the page, which is why we had problems here. Wikipedia is not a news website, so public service announcements do not belong here.
  • Also, I would appreciate if you would stop taking matters in your own hands before discussing on the talk page. You deleted the suicide section saying it was speculation. All of the theories are speculation! KGB involvement, Putin, Berezovsky, etc. They are all theories. Suicide is a theory as well, and it definitely deserves a mention in the article. Also, others did agree that the section should be kept, and that's why it was kept there. Despite these issues, I thank you for your contributions to the article, thus far. Nishkid64 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes...all of the theories are speculation. So, my suggestion, quite plainly, is that this encyclopedic article stick to the facts and stop speculating. Say, facts like: "radioactivity found on planes travelling between Moscow and Heathrow." That's not merely 'news'...given the pedigree of the information, it is factual follow-up on Litvinenko's death. --72.183.125.111 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is that...we're not the ones speculating. The rest of the world is. That's a big difference. Nishkid64 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • That's a bit like saying that the neighbor listening to gossip isn't as guilty as the neighbor that is speaking the gossip. The article is quite weak at the moment due to its excessive use of bizarre and/or POV opinion. Quoted opinions & speculation belong in a section labeled opinions & speculation, as they otherwise seem quite intended to obfuscate the facts with propaganda. --72.183.125.111 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey there. Keep up the good work with the article. I have one request. Can you look over Special:Contributions/Ekraus and tell me if you think all of Ekraus's comments have been POVish? I've already reverted 4 edits by the user that appear to be written in a POV style and it's making the article much much worse since most of it is going unnoticed. Nishkid64 15:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekraus has only appeared on Wikipedia to edit the Litvinenko article. And, yes, in a highly POV fashion. Typically, he is inserting uncited POV comments into cited NPOV sections, so as to make it appear that the POV comment is cited. In my humble opinion, he is engaging in vandalism and should be warned and blocked as necessary. --72.183.125.111 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw more of his edits. A whole section rewrite went unnoticed. See [1]. If he continues, I'll block him. Nishkid64 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that it'd necessarily turn him from his ways, but you should probably warn him first. He seems to think that Wikipedia is a blog where he can record his opinions for posterity. To be sure, he is likely well aware of what he's doing...but "assume good faith," yadda, yadda ,yadda...--72.183.125.111 15:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a similarity between Ekraus' edits and Petri Krohn's. I don't think they're the same person, but the characteristic of pushing POV is similar. Krohn's clearly out of his depth when it comes to nuclear matters, and ignores the larger context of radioactive contamination that has been found (e.g., British Airways jets) while he merrily goes about proposing ".alt" sources of polonium that no credible nuclear scientists have mentioned in this regard. I expect that he will shortly come to mention that there is lots of Po-210 in the sun that could have been used. His egotistical nonsense is mucking up the article, very similarly to Ekraus. --72.183.125.111 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of Polonium

From Talk:Alexander Litvinenko

The mispelling was due to a direct quote from a newspaper article, but if it were my mistake, I'd admit it. --72.183.125.111 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The link was there, you could have checked it instead of reverting (and calling others uninformed).
Wikipedians do not like anonymous user deleting content or reverting edits to push their particular point-of-view. If you had the edit count of User:Ghirlandajo, then, maybe, your attitude would be accepted. Anyway, you can start by registering. -- Petri Krohn 19:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, Krohn, you are welcome for my correcting several of your syntax and spelling errors...without complaint or accusations or puffery re. Wikipedia "caste." --72.183.125.111 20:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I haved reverted your revertion. There is no need to state refutials before a statement, expecially when no-one has yet refuted anything. -- Petri Krohn 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have deleted the highly specious commerical product section -- which has no citable links to Litvinenko's death -- per Nishkid's suggestion. --72.183.125.111 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)