User talk:94.113.129.238

Talk:Medieval Warm Period
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (94.113.129.238) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! walk victor falktalk 17:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents
Can we please discuss this series of edits? Can you explain the removal of seemingly-legitimate text from the article? Guoguo12 --Talk--  21:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that. Please make your case at talk:Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents and we can discuss what is wrong with them. As the data is sourced it is not fully clear why you say they are not sourced! L.tak (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 1 more thing. While discussing the case is good, stating that wikipedia can be met with legal action is against the rules and frowned upon. Please read wp:no legal threats for more info! L.tak (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim made by Mr. Wotawa from ZAMG is clearly unsubstantiated, overstated and unsourced in the linked document. Currently there are preparations made to bring criminal charges against ZAMG, Mr. Wotawa and New Scientist, because they failed to substantiate their claims - even they were asked for the sources on several occassions. It is clear the ZAMG figures are subject of controversy, even the legal one, so I think they shouldn't be promoted by Wikipedia, because they could potentially make the Wikipedia liable as subject of criminal charges for startler dissemination. The realistic estimation of the Fukushima plant fallout is not available at the moment, but all available measurements at the site of the plant and around point to the conclusion the total radioactivity fallout from the Fukushima plant was in order of <<10% of that experienced in case of the Chernobyl disaster.

April 2011
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. --John (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that you couldn't just explain what's incorrect about this information, and point out better sources where it could be verified. Wikipedia does require that you stay blocked while you're using legal threats to try to get your way, instead of simple, courteous reasoning.  If it's true and important, though, someone else will inevitably fix it, so don't worry. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what is really unfortunate but revealing here is that the now "fixed" wiki article now claims the Austrian Meteorological Service estimated the Cs-137 air release to be 5 PBq/day - which is in fact not the full truth, because the Austrian Meteorological Service in its widely disseminated startling report (see the primary source: http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?%20seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57 the Wikipedianists now chose rather not to cite at all) in fact "estimated" the Cs-137 air release to be not just 5 but 40! PBq/day. This fix says alot about the "credibility" of the primary source and its parrots here respectively. Moreover apparently a simmilar false fix is also now in (more than a year later into the history of this!) for the air release of the I-131, which according to the same original report of the same Austrian Meteorological Service originally "estimated" being 120 PBq/day. But somehow now the Wikipedia falsely atributes Austrian Meteorological Service a TOTAL air release estimation 10-700 PBq (which need to be noted here the linked Austrian Meteorological Service report, which is by link pretended to be the source of the estimate range "10-700" numbers, DOES NOT contain AT ALL and obviously cannot contain because it was released on 03/24/2011 so any total air release estimate would be premature to put it extremely mildly!!) and keeps silent about their original and again impossible daily "estimate", keeping to promote them fixing in one case without any sources whatsoever their obviously overstated "estimates", moreover made by known Austrian antinuclear activist without any notice that the source of the "information" is not non-impartial and probably attempting to win publicity by stratler rather than publish serious results in serious peer-reviewed literature. This case clearly shows that - instead of admitting at least here that the Austrian Meteorological Service with their "estimations" was obviously wrong by orders of magnitude and I was right deleting from here their criminaly startling nonsenses which seriously frightened people all around the world for months - there is clearly an ongoing cover-up of their startlers even trying to "indefinitely detain the terror suspect" messenger here using absolutely irrelevant censorship rules, because only what I made here were the legal warnings not "threats", which - as the obviously false fixes of the article now show - were absolutely legitimate especially after repeated deleting of the by real world data absolutely unsupported and startlingly invalid numbers order of magnitude higher than the numbers which are in the article "cited" from the same originator now. (Good to note that at the time I edited the article at the Wikipedia first time I already personally asked both Mr. Wotawa and his seniors at the Austrian Meteorological Service for the data they based their simulations and subsequent estimations on, but always to no avail.)