Jump to content

User talk:DenisDiderot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DenisDiderot (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 22 May 2006 (→Brandt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, DenisDiderot, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further helpful pages

allabout

hi- kudos for tracking down the identity of allabout2006 and the connection between his site and rush brands. this guy is incredibly obnoxious and i've been barely able to keep him in check without breaking the 3rr. --Heah talk 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos again. its amazing what people try to get away with. --Heah talk 15:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your encouragement! --DenisDiderot 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hi- he's back. if you could help keep an eye on the article that would be great. he's been posting this rambling nonsense that doesn't even parse . . . --Heah talk 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do so. --DenisDiderot 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

i have filed an RfC concerning the behavior of User:Allabout2006 and his socks which can be found here. I was hoping you would co-certify by adding your name here as having tried to solve the dispute because of your constant presence and dialogue on the talk page. --Heah talk 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that HoneyBot29 is another sock puppet of his (see http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=AIDS_reappraisal&diff=50340421&oldid=49957901) Amcfreely 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for correcting the incomplete revert. --DenisDiderot 04:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siegwart-Horst Günther

This looks like a rather tendentious book whose aim isn't to examine the effects of DU ammunition but to convince people that there is a problem with it. Out article on Depleted uranium on the contrary doesn't aim to convince people about the problems with DU, it merely wants to outline its effects.

The book doesn't really pass the mark set in WP:RS. This has (I think) been your fourth revert. If you want this reference kept please discuss on the talk page. Dr Zak 15:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This looks like a rather tendentious book", "doesn't really pass the mark" -- You should prove your accusations first. Feelings and impressions are irrelevant in a scientific discussion and cannot serve as a substitute for a proof. This attributes to your feelings as well. Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther was the first scientist who did an investigation on the consequences of the bombardment with depleted uranium in Iraq. If you want to outline the effects of this weapon, you should know about the results he found. --DenisDiderot 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poppers

Hi there, it doesn't really help to call a newbie's edits "vandalism", and it has been remarked before that Duesberg's views (a viewpoint that you echo) aren't accepted by mainstream scientists. Please remember WP:BITE and WP:N Dr Zak 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

201.224.70.230 is not a newbie. He's yet another sockpuppet of Allabout2006.--DenisDiderot 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the pro-Poppers spammer from earlier this year? If so, I disagree. Neither User:201.224.70.230 nor User:Lt Dan have spammed, they have merely done some editing that you disagree with. Dr Zak 12:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

Hi, I again reverted your changes out of the article. That is not encyclopedic, and that concern should be taken up at the talk page, but not within the article. Cheers, NSLE (T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-05-22)

What's your definition of encyclopedic? Check out the paragraph above mine -- why do you consider it "encyclopedic"? In my view, Wikipedia is abused for a witch hunt against Mr Brandt on that page. --DenisDiderot 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic = something you would find in an encycopedia. That paragraph is not something you would find in an encyclopedia (self-references to Wikipedia are not allowed). NSLE (T+C) at 10:23 UTC (2006-05-22)

Brandt

Hi Denis, you would need to find a source for that edit. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audiatur et altera pars is a general principle of fair play for all discussions. If one doesn't adhere to it, one is starting a witch hunt. What kind of citation do you mean? I linked to the article of that principle and the fact that Brandt was banned is already mentioned above. Do you refer to characterizing Brandt's being a public person as involuntary? Isn't that obvious from the paragraph above mine? --DenisDiderot 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not starting anything; I'm not editing the article. Please discuss it with the editors on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean you particularly and changed the wording from "you" to "one" above. I appealed to you because you are an experienced editor and administrator here. --DenisDiderot 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DenisDiderot&oldid=54526357"