Kurtan~enwiki

Please read my comment at the talk page of Ke (unit). You need to double check your source of information. -- Tomchiukc 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you can take a look at Metric time, I changed some of your edits, and you might want to see its discussion page on why, and then rewrite back in some things. (Or you might be happy with the way it is now.) FireWorks 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Kurtan, I see you started the article Yazdanism. There is a debate on religion of the Kurds before islamization in the talk:Kurdish people. I would appreciate if you take a look at that. Thanks. Jalalarbil 08:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did - after making substantial changes on the Swedish one and found nothing on Yazdanism at the en.wiki. Now having been confronted by the NN-rules on some other articles that I started (related to tired light), I think I have to check my source for notability. I also think Ali has a few points correct that have been wrongly added to my original "posting". Sorry, I haven't watched "my baby" duly. Yazdanism seems to be an academic invention to classify and relate Kurdish religious practise. And it does not exclude zoroastric influence. As for the Sabeans, I think it is a proponent's contribution and wish to relate here ( and the German wiki-link may be wrong). Kurtan 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your recent edit at Freak wave.

I've concerned that you may have made a mistake, though, as the article that you linked to does not have the title that you claim it has, and does not seem to be about water waves at all.

I searched the site you linked to for the link to the correct article, but could not find one.

I don't suppose you could take a look and figure out what went wrong?

Thanks!

Ruakh 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I found the article and fixed the link. Thanks again for your edit. :-) Ruakh 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Olav Kallenberg, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Olav Kallenberg. You may remove the {{dated prod}} template, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mr. Kurtan, This is a wife of Olav, who is very much interested to know what is your motive to us? Your stated that Olav is not your friend! then why bother keep to do thing that we don't want. I have been read and edited the article you made from beginning and I am sincerely asking you not to do someone's privacy matter without consoulting first. This is my main concern to prevent! I hope you will understand our concern and hoping no hard feeling to this favor! With a respect,

Jinsook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinsook (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear JINSOO (my guess), I have not touched this article for three years and do not understand why you bring this up again. As it is with wikipedia, other people have been editing and I cannot but regret, if there are new additions that you don't want. In the previous deletion deliberations I might have stated not beeing Kallenberg himself or a close friend of his, since this is another WP rule that you should not write articles from such a position. I can assure you that my intention was only to initiate an article on, an in my view, eminent physicist/mathematician. :-) Kurtan (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I reverted your text. From comparison of changes it appears that I meant that one can't mix two systems (even if the numbers are the same) on the same column of a table. Jclerman 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

your addition of the Jomon Era counttoJapanese era names was uncited. i have no intention of removing the section but i was hoping you might be able to provide a source for further research. Some thing 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

If there is specific content you wish to see included at Wikipedia from the previous versions of Models of the universe, please include it a physical cosmology. Thanks. ScienceApologist 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You must discuss matters. If you do not, there can be no consensus. The table has been included at cosmology. The original research text has to go from Wikipedia. Please note that the AfD was ruled "no consensus" and lacked expert input. Moreover, AfD votes do not mean that articles cannot be redirected, and this one is redundant to other articles. If you disagree, you may ask for a third opinion or start an request for comment. ScienceApologist 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussions requires time and so do checking AfD:s. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Models the verdict "no consensus" does not rhyme with my sense of justice. Cannot tell of expert input, but my tentative expert input would have been "Keep" without the OR parts. That would only slightly have changed the result to one for deletion out of 12 ballots cast. It is OK "to fight against cranks and pseudoscience", but there must be room also for viable protoscience. Viable or not are for the sages to tell if rules are flexible. Kurtan 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I never bought the allowing time argument. It only works when you are in a discussion. Dragging feet on article development tends to stifle improvement which I'm very much against. In other words, I do not buy as a rationale for reverting "the previous editor didn't allow the article to be in a bad state for enough time". Your point about protoscience is also quixotic. How do you determine what is protoscience and what is pseudoscience? I use Wikipedia guidelines (in particular WP:FRINGE). It was clear to me that the article in question was mostly original research and while the table is a clever idea and there certainly were things worth keeping there, the overall organizations and subjective essay nature of the article meant that there was little worth saving. Everyone else who has looked at the article since then has agreed with me. I hope you can understand why. Nevertheless, I encourage you to help out at cosmology where the table in an edited form now resides. ScienceApologist 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Kurtan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 873 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Olav Kallenberg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Edward L. Wright - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kurtan, the article you linked to was deleted after apparently nobody objected to a PROD. If you'd like to work on it and restore it, and defend it against possible AfD with appropriate sourcing and justification, I can send you the deleted material. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Crum, I take it you are referring to my article in 2006 on Masreliez and his "theory" that was also deleted so quickly I was not aware of the process. Yes, my red link at the Anomaly hints at an ambition to restore it, when I have gained enough data. The copy I kept for a while is gone, so it could help to see the deleted version, thank you. I am however in two minds about the notability aspects - of the person, of his theory separated or them put together. Appropriate sourcing is scarse. I do appreciate your edits on the anomaly, aware that demand for "New Physics" enhances notability. Your deliberations with Jim gave me some thoughts on that issue as well. /Kurtan (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Masreliez’s theorem is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jps (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, Science apologist I presume, I have noted your fresh anti-Masreliez campaign. My vote is already cast. Or has the system changed, as the spaniards have, from not counting votes to just judge by the strength of arguments? /Kurtan (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're being discussed at WP:FTN#User:Kurtan. jps (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have taken notice. I also take it, I am not supposed to add arguments to the discussion. /Kurtan (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to add arguments to that discussion, if you'd like. jps (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Masreliez’s theorem. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Search results are not WP:RS (as had been pointed out to you twice in edit summaries removing them), yet you insist on re-adding them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please do not change issues at stake on the AfD discussion. ¨( Kurtan (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Masreliez’s theorem. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Search engine results ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES -- do not use them. If you want to make an issue of this, then take it to WP:RSN -- but they'll also tell you not to use them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop adding Masreliez cruft to articles. I have reverted almost all of the edits you've made over the last few days and if you continue, I will escalate this to the proper authorities. jps (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Maybe you should just not tick this box at all. Every minor edit of yours I checked failed to meet our criteria for minor edits. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kurtan,

I just saw your message, which probably is now completely outdated... Regretfully I'm not anymore involved enough to help combating the POV pushing (and suppressing of other views) by certain individuals. Exceptionally I may be able to make a difference, but for timely action you should send me an email! Harald88 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi in addition, I just read your new message; and in fact it did not make me happy for I regret that it ended that way (see also the remark on my page). However such a negative end is still better than no action taken I guess... Harald88 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed the "unsolved problem" of the 20-year revisions done by JPL because there doesn't seem to be any evidence that there, in fact, is a small secular trend to be corrected for. Moreover, the sources you have cited for this don't actually make the claim that there is. The revision of the JPL ephemerides is entirely an astrodynamics problem, i.e. continuing improvements on orbit estimation due to the ongoing acquisiton of new and more precise information on solar system bodies, and not a matter of new physics. At least, not YET a matter of new physics, since until all the asteroids, kbos, and oort cloud objects are identified and fully analyzed, their effects cannot be fully characterized. siafu (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here's the "so what" right here. If you want to discuss this, I recommend doing it here, on my talk page, or on one of the article talk pages. Edit summaries aren't really the right place to try and make your argument. siafu (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have been attempting to out a user by repeatedly posting personal information. You were warned here, but persisted. Please acknowledge that you will not attempt to post any personal information of any user without their express consent. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Surprising effect, when I looked forward to see some persecuting IP-editors be reprimanded. I have not been warned in the thread you state or anywhere else and have not persisted. I have not posted any unknown personal information, see above. You will find "User:ScienceApologist" and later his final nick [redacted], showing what I presume is his real name, if you click (no secret). You can also find out what he was up to and why I find three IP-adresses (probably belonging to the same individual) acting in exactly the same way, blanking and reverting my edits and requiring action taken against me at the WP:FTN. All I was trying to attain was drawing attention to a harassment of my person, for which I do not owe wp any excuse. ¨( Kurtan (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request reason:

As stated above, the distinguished administrator 2/0 is mistaken, since the now banned [redacted] was quite explicit in using his own name. I cannot find I have posted any information along the lines cited. Kurtan (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The harassment policy you are violating is seen at WP:OUTING, where it states, "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." If you refuse to abide by our harassment policy you will stay blocked. -- Atama頭 00:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason:

I do understand what I am blocked for, so the block is no longer necessary. When finding "VanishedUser314159", I should have guessed that he/she had requested a change in username again, and it would be taken as harassment my using the personal name explicit. But to make my point in making productive contributions as before, would it be OK if I adress this editor with former User:ScienceApologist? Kurtan (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You had me believing that you understood WP:OUTING...up until the word "but". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Other users have also noted the active Wikipedia:Sock-puppet editing of the “VanishedUser” from various IP-numbers, and have presented relevant inquiry. One of the IPs, 128.59.169.46 (talk), initiating the outing-issue at stake here, has already been confirmed and preliminaries attended to on 8 August 2011. But there are at least four other IPs, all editing under this heading, left to deal with before deciding what to do with all his edits made during these months. / Kurtan (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request reason:

My stating the last known username of the presumed “VanishedUser”, was not a deliberate harassment, since he to the contrary seemed far from vanished. I have not refused to abide by the harassment policy, only infringed on rules I was not aware on. I am now aware also of the small print of the WP:OUTING rule and have no intention to repeat this slip. / Kurtan (talk) 10:19 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Hmm. I have a hard time believing that you understand WP:OUTING, seeing that your other account claimed to have understood it a couple months back. This leads to my next question, which is: why do you have more than one account? TNXMan 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, just one. In the morning 4 June 2011, I posted a message at Mr Gearloose's talk page from my present account about the VanishedUser's editing. I cannot tell if Mr Gearloose read my message before User:2over0 blanked it for unknown reasons. 89.160.124.74 seems stable since a year or so, but my account has been changing from time to time by moves of my Internet supporter. I usually do not monitor it.

sv:User:Gyrogearloose is familiar to me from the Swedish wp, where he har been editing for years mostly on protoscience biology and physics plus downhill sports. I cannot see how his possible understanding of outing would affect my not doing so? Kurtan (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Kurtan! I have got into similar "blocking" problems. I really hope my edits on articles with Masreliez ideas have not made your situation worse. Can't understand why administrators ignore all IP-socks of VanishedUser314159, edit waring? /Marigold 90.129.37.48 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be the way it ends up, if you are not familiar with how to adress the misuse properly. I can see VanishedUser314159 active again on tired light and Masreliez with his recently unblocked IP-sock 128.59.169.46. Please do not bother about my blocking problem. It has to get resolved in a decent way. I will make another "Appeal"./Kurtan (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request reason:

The distinguished administrator seems to mix things up. Mr Gearloose has nothing to do with my understanding and he has his own account which is not mine. I noted on my page that I know him from the Swedish wp as not so active, but at times taking interest in articles that I have been editing. He is a separate individual following his own interests and should not be blamed for my getting into edit wars sometimes. I will try to abide by the rules and aim at constructive edits, so the block is not necessary. Kurtan (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Since the 90.x.x.x IP is most clearly you, you do not seem to grasp the rules. Reblocking with talk disabled. Alexandria (Ni!) 21:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Masreliez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article Apeiron (physics journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Moribund journal of unclear notability. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Tagged for missing references for 2.5 years with no improvement forthcoming. Does not meet WP:NJournalsorWP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apeiron (physics journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apeiron (physics journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kurtan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kurtan~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

01:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

15:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)