1. Per reliable sources and accordingly, the overwhelming consensus from an issue discussed countless times, the correct terminology is Holocaust denier, not revisionist. Please see the archives of Talk:Holocaust denial.
2. You, like many others who bring forward that quote, are plucking it completely out of context. Here is what Stephen Some said regarding it:

It really is incredible how these idiots can take what you say out of context. However, rest assured, my comments were the following, "These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything THEY say with facts and figures." Yes, I should have added "alleged facts and figures," however, I did refer to what THEY say. Therefore, I feel comfortable with the comment because my implication is the facts and figures according to them, which of course are entirely false.

• Note that you have already reverted the page three times within 24 hours - if you do so again you will be probably blocked for edit warring. If you are unable to grasp the above points then this will be taken to a more visible place. WilliamH (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing the strain (mechanics) article. This topic is already included in Deformation (mechanics). Strain is no different than deformation. I redirected the strain article to Deformation. There is no point of an article on strain. How would you fill that page? all the content about strain is already addressed in the Deformation article. sanpaz (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the nc6000 is infamous for being crap:

link to hp support board about it

nevermind im going to stick with my eeepc for a while, thanks Decora (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although not an official policy, we've been trying to avoid adding price info to element articles. The reason is that it changes from year to year, month to month, from supplier to supplier, and is both quantity (and more importantly) purity-dependent. By the time you get done with that matrix of variables, it's impossible to keep up with. So better not to go down the road at all. Even if we decided on "ACS REAGENT" grade for all our elements, it's not defined for a lot of them. And then do we want prices of foil compared with shot or ingot.... Really, you don't want to do this. Trust me. SBHarris 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about the constant change in prices. However price information gives the reader a ballpark feeling for the item involved. An accuracy of 50% where available is vastly better than no idea at all on price.Trojancowboy (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't honestly say you're even doing that. How pure is the potassium you're talking about? And what made you chose that purity? As a long-time buyer of elements, I know very well that there is no even approximate answer to these question. But let's start with potassium. Exactly how pure is ACS reagent potassium metal? Do you know? Is it even known? Reagent grades usually defined by their impurities, not their purity. And the $700/kg stuff from GalliumSource you quote is for 98.5%, which is certainly not reagent, but an industrial grade. http://www.mcssl.com/store/gallium-source/potassium-metal/0085---potassium-metal-1-kilogram If you want 99.5% potassium from Aldrich, in 20 g cubes you'll pay $2 a gram for it, which is $2000/kg. The 99.995% in ampules is $492 for 25 g which is about $20,000 a kg. See the problem? And call me Steve. SBHarris 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Grbutter.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buttergr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buttergr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Archibald Roberts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ttonyb (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I read your comment on the talk page, but I still did not see enough to suggest that this passes A7. If you think you can show more importance, bearing in mind that if the article is to be kept in the longer term it will have to pass the higher standard of WP:Notability per WP:Notability (people), reply below here and I will userfy it for you to work on. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  By chance, I saw this message, the deleted article, and your reply, and found your reply way out of line. Naturally, we get upset when our work is removed, however, your work consisted of one line and one reference. Please take writing on wikipedia more responsibly and do avoid attacking its editors. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trojancowboy, thanks for your contribution to Tick. However, since all arachnids have eight legs, I thought it was a little redundant to have that leg number info in the lede, so I reverted your edit. It's no big deal – just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Accedie^{talk to me} 05:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Accedie's talk page.

Thanks for uploading File:Ghez9.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:Ghez9.jpg. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask you to make it explicit that in using the word libelous you have no intention of taking any legal action. I assume you don't, but I need to ask you and you might want to read WP:NLT to understand my request. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on another talk page you say you have no immediate plans. That's not enough, please make it clear that you have no plans to take any legal action or encourage others to do so. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat. You need now to make it clear there that you are not intending to take any legal action or encourage others to do so. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read this Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. In a WP:NLT block, the only way to have the block lifted is to acknowledge that you realize we have a No Legal Threats Policy, that even implied legal threats count and that you rescind any and all explicit or implied legal threats. Otherwise you will not be unblocked. Please read up on that policy page. Heiro 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the guy's article talk page, you made the rather outlandish claim that "there is no such thing as a white supremacist". It didn't take me long to find a KKK page in which they clearly state that whites are intended by God to be His "chosen people". That is the notion of "white supremacy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Devil's Advocate, if that is the case, I can get you equally good evidence for Mormon Supremacy and Jewish Supremacy from the same type evidence. Considering one's clan to have been specially chosen by god for his favors, is about the most common human delusion I know of. If that is all you mean, most cultures have some of it. Indeed, America was colonized on it (you should read what John Winthrop and Cotton Mather had to say about the "election" of the puritans by god). However, there are connotations in White Supremacy that go quite beyond the idea of being specially chosen by god, or favored by god, or whatever. The Nation of Islam has classically been black supremacist in that (worse) sense. The real probablem is that everybody means something different by such phrases. SBHarris 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harris is absolutely correct. I am sure that I can find other references to Japanese Supremacy or Chinese Supremacy. If Baseball Bugs claims that Kelso is a member of the KKK, he has put Wikipedia at great risk. No group that I know of which Kelso is a member would admit to being White Supremacist. Why was all this discussion not carried out on the section of the talk page that I started instead of banning me for bringing it up?Trojancowboy (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so much what Kelso or the groups he belongs to say about themselves, but what WP:RELIABLE sources say about them. As for the groups he belongs to, Kelso either is or was a member of National Alliance[1], which is described by numerous reliable sources as a white supremacist organization(NY Times, Boston Globe and ABC News for a few). Kelso is also a member of the American Third Position Party, also described by reliable sources as a white supremacist organization(SPLC, Yahoo News, Charleston Gazette and Business Insider for examples). And these aren't even the sources that have been found and added to the article on Kelso that specifically call him a white supremacist. Heiro 05:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am NOT claiming he's a member of the KKK. I'm taking issue with your statement, "There is no such thing as a White Supremacist. No organization that I know of wants to rule over other races." The KKK is exactly such an organization, and they openly admit it. So your assertion is false, on its face. And you didn't "bring it up", you made a blatant legal threat. That is absolutely against the rules. If you want to edit here again, you must retract and refute your legal threat. And lose this "libel" stuff. If you think there's a BLP violation of some kind, on the article talk page you say, "I think this is a BLP violation." Although, keep in mind you're essentially arguing over which kind of racist he is. Blecch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in an earlier unblock request, you stated, "I may have some rights to sue for such treatment as this." No. You don't. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. You have particular topics of interest here, and you've been editing for 4 years. You need to recant your legal threat, totally and unconditionally, and stick with subjects you know something about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging your hole pretty deep here, pardner. Baseball Bugs neither said not implied anything of the sort. I notice that you've been an editor since 2007. I'm more than inclined to assume good faith here, and chalk up your recent block to a temporary lapse of competence. Everybody is entitle to a brainfart once in a while. In the event that your latest unblock request is denied, as it probably will be, take a week off to cool down before you resubmit. You stepped on a big-ass policy landmine, and you're going to need some time to figure out what exactly happened, and then to revuerate. That's just my friendly advice, which you can take or ignore as you please. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1997? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrected. Like I said, everybody's entitled to a brainfart now and again. ~~

What's up, Doc? is absolutely correct. I am arguing over exactly what type of racist that Kelso is. I am sure that Kelso would not object to being characterized as one but I do not presume to speak for him. Why was all this discussion not carried out on the section of the talk page that I started instead of banning me for bringing it up? (edit conflict caused paragraph duplication)Trojancowboy (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been, had you not started the discussion with a false premise and then proceeded to throw legal threats around. And until you refute any and all legal threats, you won't be editing again, and unless you get serious about this, they might take away your talk page privilege also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read WP:NOTTHEM - regardless of what "other editors" have or have not done, the key to being unblocked is to discuss your actions and how you will avoid repeating the situation in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you still have not made any attempt at retraction. Tiderolls 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I believe the claim that Trojancowboy has never spoken to or communicated with Jamie Kelso. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few words of advice

If you want to be unblocked, you need to retract your legal threats. As I and others have argued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you clearly and unambiguously sought to give the impression that legal action was likely, apparently in the hope of intimidating others into not continuing to oppose your campaign to impose your preferred version in the article. You also clearly and unambiguously expressed the intention of calling the matter to the intention of someone who, according to your account might take such legal action. However, even if you can somehow still deny that doing so was a legal threat, this edit contained an explicit statement that you were yourself contemplating the possibility of taking legal action. It would be very easy to retract both of those legal threats. If you are not contemplating either taking legal action yourself or inviting participation by another person who you think may take legal action, then why not just say that you aren't? It really is that simple. If, on the other hand, you are still contemplating one or other of those two things, then Wikipedia's policy requires that the block stay in place.

Also, I will make a suggestion that I hope may help you on another issue, though it is not part of the reason for the block. You have defended your attempts to remove references to "white supremacy" on the grounds that "No group that I know of which Kelso is a member would admit to being White Supremacist". However, there is no earthly reason why Wikipedia should start restricting itself to reporting only facts about people which they avow. To the best of my knowledge Heinrich Himmler never said that he oversaw and organised the murder of millions of people. Do you think therefore that we should not mention the fact that he did? The opening sentence of the article Harold Shipman says that he was "one of the most prolific serial killers in recorded history", despite the fact that he denied all the murders with which he was charged. Should we remove from the article all reference to his murders, on the grounds that he did not admit to them? Under Wikipedia's current policy, whether people "admit" to being white supremacists or not is irrelevant: what matters is whether reliable third party sources say so. When you have been unblocked you are, of course, free to start a campaign to change Wikipedia's policy if you like, so that we start reporting about people only those things that they choose to have reported, but unless and until such a change happens, "No group that I know of which Kelso is a member would admit to being White Supremacist" will carry no weight at all.

Finally, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by consensus. Many times I have disagreed with other editors about things. There have been occasions when I have been totally convinced that all the other editors involved are mistaken, and I have been right. On such occasions I have explained why I thought the others were mistaken, but if they have persisted in sticking to their view, I have simply walked away, and found some other area of Wikipedia to work on. Better that I spend my time on work which will achieve something useful than that I waste that time banging my head on a brick wall that will still be there when I have finished, even if I am right. Some Wikipedians edit in subject areas where conflict is continually present, others edit in less controversial areas, and rarely get into conflict. However, few if any people who edit Wikipedia frequently will always be able to have things the way they would ideally like. Better to accept the fact that, if consensus is against you, it is time to leave the issue and move on.

As you can no doubt imagine, it has taken me some time to think out and write down those three pieces of advice. I hope that you will consider them, and perhaps one or more of them will be helpful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]