User talk:Llrc

Mole (unit)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Chovain 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hold some views which are very different to those put forward by the LLRC, but I have to comment that the LLRC editor was correct about the value of Na. I think that the use of the vandalism template in this case is somewhat unwise, I think that a friendly explanation of Etiquette would have been the best way to resolve the matter. I would suggest that LLRC should not add messages similar to the one he addied with the correction to the article on the mole, as such a message is likely to provoke a flame-war.Cadmium

August 2008
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Verbal  chat  17:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Verbal  chat  17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observations. I need add nothing to my previous posts, going back to March 2007, but I will repeat that insisting on this Conflict of Interest standard in circumstances such as the original Low Level Radiation Campaign article means an author unconnected with an organisation can create an entry and write there whatever rubbish suits his agenda, while the organisation has less freedom in responding. This is a denial of natural justice. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a Natural Justice Policy. Richard Bramhall Llrc (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The LLRC
The page will probably be deleted in its current form, and I agree that that is probably for the best as it is a bad article for many reasons. However, a new article may be created in it's place. If you have reliable sources (third party, not from the LLRC or Green Audit) that show the notability (either in general or in your area) then please supply them here or on the Fringe theories Noticeboard. We can then use these to build a better article, if the LLRC meets wp:notability. I'd be interested in your opinion on whether it does, with references to newspapers, books (by others) and scientific reports or publications to support your views if possible. You don't need to write a lengthy post, just point us at the things you'd like us to look at. Verbal  chat  17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: being used primarily to promote an organization of the same name. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. I'm not attached to Llrc as a user name. I used it to register because from long habit it's a user name I pick for various functions like online journal subscriptions and internet purchasing connected with the campaign. I didn't pick it for promotional purposes and I don't see that it could operate as promotion (I have looked at the user name policy, which I wasn't aware of before). A benefit it does confer, though, is a measure of transparency. I said at the outset, back in March 2007, that I don't like the anonymity of the user names that are proliferating, not just in Wikipedia, but all over the net. We have suffered endless abuse at the hands of critics who hide behind aliases. I could give you some URLs if you're interested in seeing examples. On the other hand we always identify ourselves. I can go on doing so in any posts I need to put on Wikipedia, can't I, whatever user name is decided on? No-one has objected to that, as far as I know. If a change is seen as necessary I really don't mind.
 * regards, Richard Bramhall Llrc (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the account related to you?  Verbal   chat  19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the talk page carries a contribution from, with whom I was negotiating edits to the LLRC article between March and May 2007; then going back to the place where I record passwords I see that I must have registered it. As you can see I have logged on to it now. So the answer is "yes", though I had forgotten all about it. Richard Bramhall (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the page on changing user names and decided to take its advice to register a new account, which prevents other people usurping my old user names. I won't use the old ones from now on, and I hope this will satisfy everyone's concerns. I will go on identifying myself by my real name for the reasons I have already given. I hope contributors will carry on any necessary conversations using the new (talk) page Richard Bramhall Catervula fimbriarum (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)