User talk:Starkrm/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Attempts to have this egregious bit of puffery deleted have been stymied at every point latterly by an Admin. Would you please support the request for the AdD reinstatement at her page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fang_Aili#Ernest_Emerson_Deletion Thanks Albatross2147 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Very simple. We are enforcing a ban against James Salsman, who has many abusive accounts (sock puppets). Your name was recommended by User:TDC here for editing patterns similar to James. If you're not James, I apologize; in that case you have nothing to worry about, the user check will clear your name in due time. Act naturally. (I got accused of being one too.) John J. Bulten 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with James Salsman from his posting on RadSafe. I just don't understand what you saw that lead you to believe I was him. I thought my editing of Depleted Uranium had always been towards rational science. The edit in question is my put back of the sentence "The UK government further alleges that cancers and birth defects in Iraq could be blamed on the Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens." which I thought was pointing out that what some are hastily calling DU sickness could have other causes, unrelated to DU. Apparently this is "obvious" behavior to you. Also your statement "I think Starkrm definitely needs indef block..." seems very hasty and unwelcoming to me. I think you need to take a look at all my contributions before you jump to hasty conclusions. Starkrm 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

{{

}} I'm not greatly familiar with how Wikipedia works but I'm learning. I need help navigating this process after I've been accused of being a sock puppet. To me there is essentially no evidence and there is a person calling for my immediate "indef block." They seem to be a little heavy handed here and either have no real authority or are being very very hasty with their actions. I am a Health Physicist working for an agreement state program and I've tried to contribute to articles that I see as poorly written or non scientifically sound. Suddenly I find myself facing this process and I'm not familiar enough with the method to feel like I can properly defend myself. Thank you.

If it really wasn't you who is using a

Checkuser to verify the IP addresses from suspected sockpuppets. I've looked through some of your contributions and they look good and constructive. Just wait out the process. - Rjd0060

22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reassurance. I originally removed the label on my user page but then put it back after reading the rules. I suppose it has to stay for 10 days?

Admin should remove it when the checkuser process is complete. You can keep an eye on things by visiting the report page. - Rjd0060 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I made some progress in the last 24 hours in learning a little tiny bit about how wikipedia works. I've tried to answer the "evidence" against me and I'm trying very hard not to take this personally. Thank you again for your assistance and the links. Starkrm 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

“ Confirmed Becongito = Squee23 = CME94 = Publicola = Lots of other accounts blocked socks. Other accounts unrelated. --Deskana (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)” — Rlevse • Talk • 12:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For my reference.

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

• First, take a look at the
  test area
  .
• When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
• Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
• If you need any
  help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
• Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
• Remember to use a neutral point of view!
• Explore,
  be bold in editing pages
  , and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

This is to inform you that I have placed

) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted

23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please explain how I can create the page in order to be GFDL compliant. The concerns of the afd discussion were about a lack of references to show relevance. Those have been added. The material that was in question has been removed from the article. Why, would that not address the concerns at the afd discussion?Starkrm (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

{{help me}} RockMFR deleted the Survivor Sucks page I created today AND deleted the work on the page being done at [1] SO - now I don't know where the work on this article went. I tried to address the issues in the afd nomination. I don't know how to create a page with the previous users history maintained as RockMFR told me is required above. Please help. Starkrm (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The page has been recreated [2]. Why don't you contact RockMFR? Mønobi 03:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think all is good now. But to answer your question, I did contact RockMFR here and in various places and received no answers and no help. Starkrm (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if the spelling dig appears too slanderous. I striked it out.

Why I am posting here: as for "unstudied" there have been reports of thousands of tons of DU being dispersed in populated areas. Iraq is doing its own epidemiological research, but because of the politics (which is real because it is a war zone) there is very little support from outside neutral agencies. To maintain that the article must have a strictly scientific stance is to deny that the topic is a political one. Agenda or no agenda politics is intrinsic to the topic. The topic is already mired in politics for two main reasons that I see. The first is that some of the presented literature that disclaims any health concerns has a political background (which I brought up at the talk page) and the other is its current gross use is not being adequately monitored because of a directly political struggle.

That having been said I see your point about the specific 'political agendas' being overstated. I still think a separate section under health concerns for == Epidemiology of civilians in war-zones == or something similar is appropriate for the article. I have not attempted to rewrite, or correct the focus away from what was perceived as sensationalism because of the complete delete with the rationale of needing peer reviewed studies rather than newspaper articles. Are you personally opposed to such a section if the content is not as sensational as it was when its focus was on Basra photographs? - Steve3849 ^talk 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the political side of things. I would not object to that content being added. I've decided today to stop editing the article at all. Cheers!! and thank you for the apology. Starkrm (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.