User talk:LF1975

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] LHC

Hi I've brought this here as we are digressing from the subject matter namely the LHC. No problems about the fanatic thing. But you have to remember that all of what you written have has nothing to do with the article. Wikipedia is not the place for informing politicians, it's not the place for making supporters or detractors do anything, it does not take consideration for anyone fears, nor is it a place for soap boxing. It should be a neutral informative article which must be based on (and I repeat again) verifiable sources and not point of view. It's where people my come and find further information on the issue, and not what you or I believe to be or not to be true. It's all about sourced information, if you can find a published paper or a peer reviewed article that states that the LHC will create a rip in the space time continuum, which will allow unicorns and leprauchauns to come though then it has to be added. Lets look past your concerns and look to createing a well sourced well written article/section that can inform the general public of the issues, and the reasonings.

Also on a side note when you leave a message on a talk page can you finish your message with ~~~~ which signs your messages and allows other editors know to whom they are replying. Cheers Khukri 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi just another quick point, it's not generally accepted to change discussions that have been commented on, usually if you wish to change anything you write a comment afterwards of use <s> </s> this the strikes out your comment like this. The reason being other editors can't then follow a discussion, and following comments can look out of place. Cheers Khukri 10:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Khukri, Thank you for your message. I got useful information about using Wikipedia (being a new comer I appreciate your advice). About "a neutral informative article which must be based on (and I repeat again) verifiable sources and not point of view", I have nothing against, but just want to bring to your attention that I did not touched the LHC article, only the "discussion" page which I consider OK for discussing points of view. It's true that I'm not a nuclear scientist, but still I can read whole articles related to nuclear physics (I admit, I don't bother checking the formulas:) ) without getting bored and I pretty much get the idea behind. Best regards, LF1975.LF1975 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No problems at all and thanks for your message, it's appreciated. I realise you weren't editing the article hence I brought it here instead of continuing on the talk page. One of the problems with the editing which we are seeing at the moment is they start based on facts and then continue with assumptions. I have used the word verifiable sources I don't know how many times, and other editors are starting to press this home as well, yet no concrete sources are forth coming. I have no problems at all with there being a section that outlines the fears, but what I don't want to see if it based on incorrect assumptions or misinformation. Wikipedia is quite firm on it's position with regards to reliably sourced information, and I'm treating this article no different to any other article I would work on. Even though we might have a difference in view point, if you do need any help or information in the future don't hesitate to get in touch. Khukri 15:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello LF1975, I appoligize, I may have inadvertently overwritten your post from earlier today, it has been kindly re-added by Khukri. BTW, if you are correct, then the 4 to 7 minute MBH accretion of Earth estimate is probably out and the millennia estimate is probably still in.... --Jtankers (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)