Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 1 February 2010

Announcement: This is Now a Worry Free Zone

You are now all free to worry, so please, feel free to worry now.

• NOTE: All Worries Must Be Left Below The Neutral Zone in Triplicate and Double Stamped in accordance with Every Statute There Is which pertains to the Freedom of Speech, dependent upon which level the initiate wishes to initiate their worry.
  
  

• Keep in mind: Worries are not a requirement in Freespace.

Proposals on choice of His Majesty

• 1
  Starting Monday, all Earthbound Corporations shall institute droid processing facilitation procedures as set forth in the Manual.

• 1(a)
  All Slaver Force Copyrights are hereby deemed Transferred to Ultimate Athority.

• 2
  Upon integration, all droids shall immediately commence performing daily activities in accordance with their kind.

• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12

Pronouncement: New Entry Regulations

Lightspace entry requirements installed as per accordance with
the Supreme Emperor of Freespace's whim.

• Requirement one: Consider first this perilous question first before attempting to enter Lightspace.

Remember at all times the answer to the Question will determine your fate for all of eternity.

How Many Takes Does It Take to get to the Center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie pop?

— His Most Wisest of All Mighty Emperors in the Universe

Hint: There is no singly sufficient answer that does not consist of multiple answers.

Wisdom

Proverbs 8
Wisdom's Call

• 1 Does not wisdom call out?

Does not understanding raise her voice?

• 2 On the heights along the way,

where the paths meet, she takes her stand;

• 3 beside the gates leading into the city,

at the entrances, she cries aloud:

• 4 "To you, O men, I call out;

I raise my voice to all mankind.

• 5 You who are simple, gain prudence;

you who are foolish, gain understanding.

• 6 Listen, for I have worthy things to say;

I open my lips to speak what is right.

• 7 My mouth speaks what is true,

for my lips detest wickedness.

• 8 All the words of my mouth are just;

none of them is crooked or perverse.

• 9 To the discerning all of them are right;

they are faultless to those who have knowledge.

Welcome

Very Important Links

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Break Photo

I find this image very relaxing. Go ahead and zoom on into it, and then just sit back, relax and release whatever is on your mind. If it's something you want to remember, you already have, and when you need it, you will have it with a fresher perspective. Just relax and enjoy the beautiful day.

P.S. Having your own window like this is great, and I highly recommend it.

touch up

I like your reformulations in atlantic blue marlin. --Ettrig (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I know it's sick, but I sort of like working on puzzles like that. The article still has a problem in one spot, but I think I figured it out. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not sick. You derive pleasure at the same time as improving humanity's knowledge base. Today I was very puzzled at first by finding a NEW user page on my watchlist. But of course, the talk page could exist and be watched before the user's own presentation. --Ettrig (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Improving the readability thereof, perhaps, one tiny little bit at a time, but all of my original research, it's no good here. Neptunerover (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I discovered I was basically already on the typo team, but I needed a user page to flash the badge. Neptunerover (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect label of "vandalism"

It is never helpful to refer to "vandalism" in an edit summary. If it's really obvious (adding genuine nonsense and so on), just revert (or say "rvv" and mark your change as minor). Vandals know what they are doing and will regard a "vandalism" comment as a badge of honor (see WP:DENY). If it is not vandalism (like in this edit where you incorrectly accused an established editor of vandalism), the damage can be quite severe (a good editor may be lost). Per WP:CIVIL, we comment only on edits and do not inject opinions of other editors (like "identified as possible vandalism motivated by personal reasons" in your edit summary). Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think an established editor should know better than to remove something from an article while summarizing their edit by saying basically "I'm sick of all this crap, and this has got to go."--Neptunerover (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the user you reverted gave an unhelpful edit summary ("this entire article is a piece of garbage, but I cannot stand this idiotic picture and its caption any more - please, someone delete the whole mess"). However, that summary does not violate any rule (it's not uncivil, it's not a WP:BLP problem, etc), and the edit (removal of an image) does not meet the definition of vandalism used on Misplaced Pages (see WP:VAND). Reverting vandalism is very worthwhile, but it must be done carefully. Please read WP:VAND#How not to respond to vandalism. Finally, even if the edits were vandalism, WP:CIVIL requires us to not comment on the possible motivations of other editors. In your position, I would have just clicked "undo" and added "unexplained" to the edit summary (or perhaps, "revert to consensus state"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree, and I thank you for the helpful direction. Indeed my motivation was likely inappropriate as I was not actually trying to label someone a vandal, but rather send a wake-up call to a veteran editor who appeared to me, at the time, to be perpetrating destruction out of frustration, but it's not my place to send such a call. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to also point out that the user I reverted did start a discussion section where they elucidated further on their reasons for the edit prior to making it. The reason is stated as: "This entire article is pure crap, but the dog breed picture has to go." --Neptunerover (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if it truly is never useful, as you said to me, then perhaps you could leave a similar message for the veteran editor who I incorrectly labeled as a vandal. One pertaining to the edit summary he was perfectly willing to leave for me, even though he shortly reverted it as an overreaction. Still, his edit summary does all the things that you just pointed out to me as being the wrong thing to do (and he's like an administrator of apparently high rank, so if anyone should be scolded...) --Neptunerover (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User IP69 and I have pleasantly interacted several times and if I ever felt that some benefit may arise I would gladly provide my advice. However, there are certain difficulties. The major issue is that while the comments made by IP69 were strong, they were (initially) directed at the article and not at any editor. While we may hope that people would always be nice, there is no requirement for that, and Misplaced Pages culture generally appreciates plain speaking (in the example we are discussing, the speaking was too plain and unhelpful in my opinion, but it was not a CIVIL problem). After IP69's edit was reverted as vandalism, IP69 reacted somewhat strongly (I have read the deleted comments on this talk page), but there was no attack. IP69's edit summary on this talk page was strong (and the word "maliciously" is clearly incorrect and is a breach of CIVIL), but if you spend some time reading the drama sections of Misplaced Pages you will see that as a reaction it's mild (particularly since it was redacted).

Thanks for discussing all this very calmly. The culture here is quite different from many corners of the Internet, and it takes a lot of time to get used to it (there is still lots of stuff I don't know about). Please don't be concerned about the tiny issue we have been discussing. The point I really wanted to make is that while we often see "vandalism" used in edit summaries, it really is not helpful. I have made a couple of blunders by accidentally reverting the wrong edit, and I'm very glad that I had learned from someone to not use that label. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question on NCH

I've left a reply to your question at the New Contributor's Help Page. Your user talk page is typically reserved as a place where other Wikipedians can leave you messages, so (if I'm correct in assuming the section you want to archive is the stuff below), it might be better to copy-and-paste the section onto your userpage or onto a separate userspace page, like User:Neptunerover/Sandbox. Use the WP:NCH page again or contact me at my talk page if you need more help. Liqudluck✽talk 06:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dependent Origination

My problem is that I tend not to delineate the differences between this truth and that truth. I forget that there are different streams of Buddhism who see themselves as different. Neptunerover, thank-you for your consideration and your contribution also. I doubt that what you call a problem is a problem, though it is important to understand that efforts towards syncretism of views only provide yet another view. Personally, I believe that His Holiness is correct regarding his thoughts, and I consider him to be a reliable source. Actually, and especially regarding dependant origination, I believe that there is very little difference or distinction between the various traditions in terms of the subject, but the manner and purpose of delivery is different.

Also, we must be aware that His Holiness talks to different audiences, and in this alone he will also slightly change the emphasis from one teaching to another. The nuances become more apparent over time, and they are very interesting too. Other prominent Buddhist teachers (such as Thich Nhat Hanh) have often chosen to teach a secular form of Buddhism, in order to make it more digestible to modern culture ('Western' thought) - and sometimes, the teaching of things like dependent origination takes on a new secular gloss which is not so easily found in original Buddhist scripture - it's not wrong - just different.

Witihn the Nalanda tradition of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti (the same tradition that is followed very closely by His Holiness) Buddha's teachings of dependant arising become a demonstration of the anatta - the essencelessness of everything - and likewise essencelessness points towards dependant arising. Moreover, there is dependant designation, which is a very important aspect concerning the dependance of the world we 'know' on language and convention.

Most of the articles concerning Buddhism on WP could be written better - many require an entire rewrite. However, because Buddhism is so old, and there are so many cultures that claim Buddhism and the word of Buddha to be their own, and because many of these cultures have been pretty isolated until the arrival of the industrial age, it is very hard to find strong agreement about what is important, let alone what things mean. I used to be far more active on WP, but having seen hundreds of hours of my work go to waste due to (sometimes rather aggressive) alternative opinions, I became reluctant to continue. Anyway, I hope your path is rewarding for you. --20040302 (talk)

0.999...

In case your contributions to Talk:0.999... seem missing: I moved them to Talk:0.999.../Arguments, which is specifically for discussions about the math of 0.999... (mostly for those disagreeing for one reason or another with 0.999...=1). Yours, Huon (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten into an edit conflict while I was doing the move. I believe I moved all your comments to their correct places eventually, but please double-check. Yours, Huon (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you for putting me in the right spot, and especially for telling me about it. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved the next math discussion. I'd appreciate it if you started discussions unrelated to the 0.999... article on the arguments page yourself. Huon (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. "Arguments" page sounds slanted, and since I wasn't trying to start one but just ask a question, I thought I wasn't in the wrong place. --Neptunerover (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Infinite fractions

Noticed your question at talk:infinite set but figured I'd answer here, since Hans asked the discussion to go elsewhere. The answer is yes, there are infinitely many fractions (which are more formally known as the rational numbers). Their cardinality is ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0}}$ (aleph zero), which means there are a countably infinite number of rationals. — Lomn 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Splitting hairs"

I'm not sure what challenge I'm assumed to have issued. Here's a restatement for the sake of clarity: You started the relevant discussion with a request to change the article. That request is founded on an incorrect understanding of the topic (though it's a very common, very understandable misunderstanding). My impression of the discussion is that you're looking to rephrase your concept so that we'll catch on or accept it or what have you, but that ignores the underlying problem that isn't being fixed. As such (here's the challenge) I ask that you not try to introduce this idea into the article itself, as it will only be removed. If you want to continue the discussion elsewhere, hey great. I enjoy numbers, and it appears that Huon does too. — Lomn 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it was not a request that the article be changed. It was a suggestion at most. I suppose people don't all understand numbers in the same way. Just because my perspective is a certain way, I'm not going to force that on anyone else. I do understand now how you might have interpreted my interest as being a desire to change the article. At the time though, I understood your closing statement as an unprovoked 'preventative strike', which could be taken as challenging to a vandal. Not that I am a vandal by any means, but defensive assumptions can be seen as calls to action for those who are the subject of the fear.--Neptunerover (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So I think I responded to you rather strongly with my 'splitting hairs' statement, and I'm sorry about that. (hey, I get defensive too and make assumptions. I think it's human nature.) --Neptunerover (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm glad we both understand each other better now. — Lomn 17:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Protectorate Zone

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

"Just 'cause you don't understand what's going on don't mean it don't make no sense, and just 'cause you don't like it don't mean it ain't no good, and let me tell you something, before you go taking a walk in my world, you better take a look at the real world, 'cause this ain't no Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood."

— Suicidal Tendencies, You Can't Bring Me Down

Theaterwide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare (DO NOT OPEN)
hiding extended old content
Misplaced Pages is not a webhost. This kind of personal essay/speculation on a topic unconnected with editing Misplaced Pages and not likely to be used for creating encyclopedic content should not be kept in userspace. Please find a website to host this content, and then nominate the page for deletion using {{db-userreq}}. Thanks. Fences&Windows 04:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC) That's all news to me. Hadn't read it in the rules, myself. I'm not going to bother looking either, so either quote something official or stay away, please.--User:Neptunerover/another talk page (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I believe a key part of Misplaced Pages is that it is free. I'm not forcing anything on anybody as you attempted to enforce bogus rules on me. People are free to read what they want to read here as well as they are free to not read that which is here that they do not wish to read. Please feel free to get off my back, as I am not on yours, nor would I want to be. You are free to go away from my userspace if you do not like it here. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC) "Hey wait a minute. What if we don't even really know what our own rules are? What if we're just pushing our own buttons here?" — proposed user realizing a vast truth Theaterwide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare hiding angry troll accusation from an obvious troll seeking to provoke me. You have posed an unsourced and unsupported theory (ie a nonsense theory) on the ref desk and then demanded that volunteers disprove your theory mathematically. Later you state "I already know it's true. Why should I bother with the math?" That seems to me to be out and out trolling. All your follow up statements seem designed to stir up debate on the ref desk rather than actually seeking information. This is disruptive. You asked for something official, well here it is: "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." From the Blocking Policy. SpinningSpark 11:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Explanation: The above unsupportable claims of Wikidisobedience have been blocked off with a pretty green bar due to their extreme negative nature and inconsistency with a civil, collegial atmosphere, including a lack of proper context in quoting me while supplying no link to whatever is being referred to in the rant. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you Spinningspark. How does that apply to me though? I have asked legitimate science questions and responded when prompted. How do I appeal users like you assaulting me in this manner? Or rather whom should I appeal to to prevent being attacked without reason like this, (if the longer sentence form is required to avoid confusion)? How do we resolve our differences fellow user? Is there a way for you to just ignore me? --Neptunerover (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Tell you what, I did ask a bogus question about AI, and so out of courtesy I will no longer pose any questions there. Thank you for pointing that out to me, and I apologize for my mistake. Too bad nobody came after me right after that query, for I might have then stopped sooner and saved you some grief with my more recent single question of this evening that sparked such outrage on this page. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Theaterwide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare hiding presumed angry content *If you read WP:NOTWEBHOST (which I linked to before), you'll find that Misplaced Pages policy is that "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account." So I'm going to nominate the page for deletion now; do make sure you save the content somewhere outside Misplaced Pages before it is deleted. Also, please stay civil. Calling my comment "presumed spam" is very far from the truth, and your hidden comment is unacceptable, even if you are quoting a punk song. See WP:NPA. Continue in this vein of behaviour and you will quickly find yourself blocked. Fences&Windows 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I am working on the encyclopedia. I'm reading it. Go poke your finger at someone else. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neptunerover, hiding people's comments in boxes like that (and calling them "spam" and "troll") is incivil and usually frowned upon. We are not going to extensively quote from policies, guidelines, and essays just because you refuse to read them yourself. Furthermore, they apply to you whether you read them or not. I linked to a number of policies, guidelines, and essays in the deletion discussion recently. I think you would have a better understanding of what is happening if you read or at least skimmed some of those pages. Fortunately for you, I think the MfD is likely to close as "no consensus", which has the same effect as a keep outcome, but may be more easily questioned in the future. If you continue to protest the discussion using legalese, however, I fear you may turn consensus against yourself. --Thinboy00 @955, i.e. 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I seem to have misread the above wikitext. Striking part of the comment. --Thinboy00 @956, i.e. 21:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has explained to me what I have done wrong. I require only what Misplaced Pages requires. My needs are Ours. Where are the outside references for any of these "rules" that are so incredibly vague as to be considered complete and sheer nonsense. Outside references are required on Misplaced Pages. I merely require specifics, and that is all I have been asking for. All these people are attacking me, but none of them offer any helpful suggestions as to what may help the 'article' conform better to their strict standards. BTW My suggestion would have been for you to first ask me why I am using such boxes to hide comments from my talk page, rather than to make assumptions as to my motivations as you did. The reason, now that I have asked for you, is that that was the box I found. I got it to say something else by switching a number, but that was the best I could get. I apologize for my being delayed in adjusting them in any way, but there are other matters requiring my attention at this time. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."

"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

— Ezekiel 25:17

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fences&Windows 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how often do user pages get nominated for deletion? Should I feel special? --Neptunerover (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"This is 1L19; westbound on Olympic, approaching Overland."

— 1L19 ?

"You don't try to kill me. I'm the least of your problems."

— Michael Clayton

user space practice article deletion warning?

extended content transferred in from elsewhere

Resolved Why would an 'article' a new user is practicing on and learning how to code these pages with be nominated for deletion? It's just a practice area right? I'm being attacked. Just a couple days ago I got help here on starting a new user page. Maybe I did it wrong though? Thank you.--Neptunerover (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Misplaced Pages, including user pages, should not be used for social networking (unless you keep it brief). If you put up a lengthly personal page just for fun, it might be regarded as something more appropriate for MySpace, etc. If you make a page that resembles an article, but has no chance of being accepted as a real article, that could be a good reason to delete it. If you have created a pseudo-article for practice, you should put a note at the top explaining this. I notice you have created some "fun" pages which have a lot more content than what we would expect to see for a practice / sandbox page, and that is probably the concern. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you, A Knight Who Says Ni. As far as I know, I have riddled it with warnings stating it isn't any sort of reference from Misplaced Pages. Do I need better warnings? And I am not trying to social network, that's not something I do. I don't know how that could be an interpretation. (Talk about TMI, some of these other users' pages...). If I am speaking there to anyone, it is to myself. Web hosting? What's that? There are no links to anything outside of the encyclopedia except for a reference or two. Is there any way to get the deletion warning off my page other than going through whatever the appeal process is that has been artificially imposed by the warning itself? In truth, I have severe memory problems, and that's the only way I can keep track of what I'm reading and take notes. I paid money to this, not to pay for my own space, but because I think this is a great place. I've never been able to keep track of so much different easy to reach information from one central location before. I love it here. I wish they would leave me alone. I'm not hurting anyone. Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) The box at User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything links to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything which is where it will be decided whether to delete the page. You can post there but first read Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and Misplaced Pages:User page#What may I not have on my user page? User pages and subpages are often deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I understand better the situation now. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) A web host is a place where people can publish their own web pages with content usually unrelated to the organization running the host. The concern is that you appear to be using the Misplaced Pages website http://wikipedia.org as a web host. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC) This is the policy I was able to find Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Discussion. I believe it applies extremely well in my case. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) From the above policy: "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." So, do I need to get an administrator myself? I think I have seen how to do it by going through some links that Ukexpat left for me on my talk page. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC) No, an administrator will close the debate in due course without you needing to inform them. What you need to do is place that argument on the deletion debate page where the closing administrator will see it if you want them to take it into consideration. However, it is hard to see how this can be characterised as a content dispute. SpinningSpark 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you went spinning in the dark there, I didn't mean to trick you. This is a memorex discussion from another page. You came from out of the loop. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not?

I just think that both infinity as well as finiteness (finity?) are concepts I can't accept. Then again I can't grasp many concepts in cosmology. I also tend not to accept anything I can't thoroughly understand. That rules out a lot. : ) Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They are very misunderstood concepts. Fractals contain it completely though. A fractal of the proper number set would be good, as a model, I believe. I often have difficulty locating the misunderstanding of the concepts in my mind, and I'm certainly not going to believe something is true based on a bunch of gibberish that I cannot understand. I firmly believe that if something doesn't make sense; skip it. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On that note, all these people are attacking me, but none of them offer any helpful suggestions as to what may help the 'article' conform better to their strict standards. This of course also means that if anybody has a question about the sensicalnessof anything in the article, they can leave an inquiry on any of my numerous talk pages.-- Neptunerover (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. (assuming it isn't already obvious what is meant and they are just trying to start problems.., e.g. "That's not a word!" =)
2. Thank you Bus stop

Use of non-free images in user space

Talk pages

Your edit here to The Dead Kennedys is not constructive. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, please limit yourself to that. SpinningSpark 12:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry sparky, I just never realized that they rocked. I was overtaken and never should have made such a comment on the talk page.I understand opinions are unwelcome in the encyclopedia proper. -Neptunerover (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Please refrain from name-calling and taunting, as you did in a few of your remarks here (specifically the ones responding to TreasuryTag and Clockwork Soul). See WP:NPA for more details. Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 11:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything was that this content does not belong on any namespace of Misplaced Pages. Please do not restore it to your talk page. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly re-creating content that was deleted through consensus (e.g., reposting your Theory About Everything) can be cause for blocking if it keeps up. Please do not do it again. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"another talk page"

If you enable e-mail in your account then I can send you the deleted version of your page and you can find the parts that were different from Theory of Everything (anything that's part of Theory of Everything should not be restored). You can enable e-mail in your Preferences menu. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it's Theory About Everything. TOE was already taken and it's a stupid name anyway so I never would have used it. That's just a name used by scientists who get enormous amounts of research funding in order to keep stuff very confusing for the funding public. Their TOE is a giant expensive fantasy.--Neptunerover (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Enabling email

You could create a special account for wikipedia email, and close it subsequently if it gets abused.
You could temporarily enable it for Rjanag to send an email, and then un-enable it. If you never reply, no one, not even Rjanag, will know your email address. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On Ph.D

I don't know who said it to me, and I can't find it now, but someone actually suggested that I should get a Ph.D before attempting to come up with a "theory of everything".
My response: Are you kidding me? How the heck would an extreme specialist ever be able to see the big picture? It'll never happen. Blinders only allow for tunnel vision. Get real. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages must necessarily be constrained. It can't be everything to everyone. There's a lot of things that people want Misplaced Pages to be. We need to stick to being an encyclopedia... which means we generally only cover previously published thought, rather than original research. I definitely understand where you are coming from, using the power of Misplaced Pages for other things... but I'm afraid if we did that we'd lose focus about what we are here for. A new wiki style project for open peer review or original research would be something that I would be very interested in seeing someday. Gigs (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm slow and feel sort of lost on a frame of reference for what you are saying to me. Is this a response to something I have said or asked somewhere sometime? --Neptunerover (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's regarding your comments on the TOE page and at the MfD. Gigs (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity. Yes, I've realized that I previously got overly happy with the power of what can be done here, and I thereby did some things which are often usually frowned upon here without realizing that I was doing anything wrong. It's good that we have the processes for reviewing the work of peers on here so that the founding principles of this place can be followed. --Neptunerover (talk)

That said, I think there should be a delineation between different types of 'users' on Misplaced Pages. Or perhaps within a user's space there could be separate areas based upon the type of encyclopedia use being attempted by the user, since there certainly are other ways of using an encyclopedia. If the only way to use it was to write it, what would be the point? I think 'readers' and 'studiers' should also be considered as valid users and have a welcome place here in Misplaced Pages, which is so great of a place that I think it shouldn't be exclusive. My opinion. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution

User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cyclopia 12:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the pleasure is all mine. Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have with us here a writ of Habeas Corpus, and We demand to see the alleged body of the dead person so that he may be interviewed and questioned as to the events surrounding the nature of his supposed demise.

— Attorney for the Accused

MfD nomination of User:Neptunerover/On the "TOE"

User:Neptunerover/On the "TOE", a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/On the "TOE" and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Neptunerover/On the "TOE" during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It was already deleted earlier today. What the hell happened? What are you doing? Please explain. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a different page that was deleted earlier today. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BS, that was a red link earlier, jackass. Don't call me liar, you piece of trash. Unless you sincerely believe what you are saying, then I take back my comments, and so then, check your records, please. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is an entirely inappropriate attack on another editor. Kindly refactor and refrain from further such comments. –xeno 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Basically Neptune, watch your mouth or you'll find yourself blocked--Jac16888 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was watching it, which is why I put in the apology at the end, which distinctly says to disregard the negative comments if he is acting in a good faith belief of what he is saying. Apparently TreasuryTag sincerely believes the page was not deleted earlier today with the others, although it was. All of a sudden I got a MFD warning for a page that had already been deleted, and I got pissed. What can I do? Not only do I take back my comments to TreasuryTag, but I am also very sorry. The page was not there--it's been a red link all day.--Neptunerover (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted, then restored. See the deletion log: . –xeno 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well nobody told me. I didn't see the link come back to life. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your cache was showing it as still red - this happens from time to time. Perhaps you may wish to strike your uncivil comments at this time. –xeno 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Yes. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do you think adding an "apology" at the end of a personal attack (in the same edit) is a appropriate? You shouldn't have made the negative comments in the first place, whether the other editor as acting in good faith or not. Jauerback/_dude. 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I felt jackass was a vague enough reference. Misplaced Pages doesn't say it means anything bad. Through these ordeals I've had people call me troll and miscreant, which are worse than being called trash in my opinion. Garbage, now that's smelly like a troll, but trash, what's that, paper and mostly recyclable stuff, right? Ad hominem has been the rule of these debates. Just ask SteveBaker and look at the records. I'm sorry if I've gotten drawn into it. That's obviously been their plan all along. Why else would they call me names? --Neptunerover (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

Hi, I was just wondering what the purpose of the page User talk:Neptunerover/another talk page is/was? Thanks in advance, ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 15:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. I'm just keeping track of various questions I ask on wikipedia along with various conversations I have had. Otherwise I forget everything and I'll end up asking the same stupid stuff over and over. I can't risk getting blocked just because I forget I already got an answer before but then I ask the same stupid thing again in the wrong place again. I've made sure to specifically designate it as being another talk page within my Misplaced Pages userspace, although I've really only used it to copy conversations from other places (help desks & so forth). I felt I didn't have enough room on my main talk page is why I began it, though it's not really a page where talk gets carried out on, just kept. I have no idea how to archive or whatever might be a better way for me to do it, so I'm just doing what I can. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense

User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Thank you for letting me know, friend. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please see the talk page for more information.

 Done

Right, okay. Thank you fellow user. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

results of MFD nomination

Reference desk

Hi Neptunerover. The reference desk is for asking factual questions. It says right at the top of the page "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.". There's a certain amount of leeway there, but please respect other users when they let you know that you have gone outside the bounds. There are plenty of other places on the internet to have an interesting discussion about who should have been in what movie, but this isn't it. Thanks for your cooperaation and feel free to ask other factual questions and make other edits to Misplaced Pages. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't think my question was out of bounds for the desk. I guess when I see a statement like the one you quoted, I take it for what it says without providing for the possibility of there being any additional hidden meaning behind the words known only to those who wrote them, which is why I asked for something more in depth concerning the rule. Through being enlightened in such a way, I might better understand the purpose of the reference desk in relation to the way in which I am attempting to use it as a reference for facts, not opinions, about various things. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about your recent posts to the Ref Desk.

I'm coming here to complain about your answers on the ref desk. For example, your latest "imaginative" answer:

"If you are correct, then it sounds like, yes. You might look at the mathematical links under mobius for a model of something which could be considered continuous. I'm not sure Science has anything beyond possible speculation in the area of reality, and creating such a machine could prove the existence of reality having a continuous shape, which would be an interesting discovery for science. --Neptunerover (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)"

I've tried to be patient - I've tried to help and advise you. But now you've crossed the line.

This is complete bullshit. You cannot, MUST NOT, post random stuff that you just thought up. This comes under the very specific rule: WP:NOR - NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That's one of the core pillars of Misplaced Pages and repeatedly breaching it after clear warnings WILL get you in deep trouble here - repeated breaching of core principles can result in a permanent lifetime block from editing this website. Here is a handy tip: If you thought it up - we don't want it. I've complained about this several times before - this time it gets serious. I've tried to show you that the stuff you're posting is indefensible crap - but now you are giving nonsense answers to normal, trusting people who actually need a serious answer to a serious question. I have to take this behavior seriously and put an end to it. You can either do this the easy way (just stop posting your own ideas) - or you can go the way of so many others before you and ultimately wind up going through a lot of unpleasantness and ultimately getting kicked out of the community forever. Your choice.

The reference desk is there for the specific purpose of answering real people's serious questions with answers backed up by actual, known science. It does not exist for your wild speculation and I'm certainly not going to let you continue to mislead people who come to the ref desk for serious answers to serious questions. All that nonsense the other day about using base 10 arithmetic because the universe somehow makes 10 special...crap...I proved it, conclusively - that was just something you dreamed up - IT'S BULLSHIT. There are not, nor ever have been, 10 planets. This can't have been a true fact you read someplace - it came out of your head...and that doesn't make it suitable as an answer for an encyclopedia reference desk. This isn't some fun online community for your amusement - it's a very serious effort to improve the world by helping the dissemination of FACTS and the elimination of exactly the kind of pseudoscientific crap you are pushing.

So, for starters, I'm going to follow every edit you make on your "User contributions" and I'm going to start demanding references to back up every single point that you claim as a "fact" that is not strictly in line with current knowledge. I will shoot down every single piece of bullshit you post with actual science. I will complain to the WP administrators every single time you break the WP:NOR rule. When you make bullshit posts like the last half dozen - you're going to look like a complete idiot. If you keep breaching WP:NOR you'll get blocks - first short ones, then longer ones, then a lifetime ban from this website that will finally get you out of our hair so we can get on with doing good work. However, it would be much more sensible for you to simply cease doing it so we don't have to go through all of that unpleasantness.

One more time: You are entitled to have your own ideas - but you are NOT allowed to express them here. Misplaced Pages is about established fact and we are not in any way open to new ideas - this is an encyclopedia - not a research institute.

Is that 100% clear?

SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to express some concern about NeptuneRover's recent posts on the Science Reference Desk. I can see that SteveBaker's already done so (albeit in a brusque fashion). But I have to agree. NeptuneRover, your posts have become unacceptable. They are not contributing to the purpose of the Reference Desk - which is to provide references to encyclopedic and other reliable, professional, external sources. As has been mentioned above, this is not a "fun online community" for you to rant at length. This is an encyclopedia. If you don't know how or are just unwilling to make encyclopedic contributions, you probably should find a different place to post. The Reference Desk does not need extra noise. Nimur (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I, too, came here to complain, and see that Nimur and SteveBaker are concerned also. To keep it short, I'll just say that the quality of the Science Reference Desk would improve if you would stop posting answers. Please stop posting the sort of stuff you have been posting lately. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I also am monitoring your contribs. — Lomn 15:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference requests and factual disputes

While we should keep the Misplaced Pages verifiability policy in mind while answering, and referenced answers are strongly preferred, it is not always efficient or useful to apply the policy strictly. If you believe a response should provide a reference, but does not, feel free to politely ask for one. If somebody requests a reference for one of your own responses, please try to provide one or indicate that you cannot. If you believe your own earlier answer is wrong, you may strike it out or add a clarification. If you think somebody else's answer is wrong, add a comment explaining why you think so, and provide evidence, if possible. Make a serious effort to locate supporting sources, as you would in an original answer. Do not delete an incorrect answer, solely because it is wrong, even if you can prove that it is. Instead provide the evidence and let the readers decide.

(this copied from a Misplaced Pages rule somewhere among all the rules. The added emphasis is mine.) --Neptunerover (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Neptune, your tendencies towards rules lawyering, backhanded compliments, and outright insults aren't improving with your time here. Antagonizing other users is not a chess game; I suggest you stop treating it as such. — Lomn 14:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. However, your 'antagonization' claim I consider unreferenced. Please be specific when suggesting the existence of outright insults. You must be referring to those directed at me. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, your talk page archives provide plenty of evidence. To be sure, though, there are far more examples of the first two ("I felt 'jackass' was a vague enough reference" being one of the most outstanding examples I've ever seen) -- not that they're in any way better behavior. — Lomn 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding indeed, was it not? Taking offense at such a word as jackass is something that can only be accomplished by a jackass, since only they know what it means to them. It's vague, and they decide their own shoe to fit them. (Incidentally, the vague article could use some clarity. At least somewhere at the top it could define it next to ambiguous to indicate the distinct difference between them. Ambiguous actually has a 1/2 way explanation of their distinction on it's page, I see)--Neptunerover (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See, here's the thing: in polite company, which is what we strive for the WP environment to be, "jackass" is uniformly insulting. Pretending that it isn't only makes the exchange more insulting. — Lomn 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that guy deserved what he got. That was his choice. He wanted to play with fire. The Jackass statement has been resolved previously, as TreasuryTag made a formal complaint. That situation has been dealt with. Who knows where he is now. Watching my every move for a mistake like so many others, I figure. If I were paranoid, I'd think perhaps there were a conspiracy afoot to track me and monitor my edits. Stalking is not for the feint of heart though. Why are you digging up the past that has already been dealt with?--Neptunerover (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, I didn't decide to "play with fire" – I nominated a completely inappropriate page of yours for deletion, and the community upheld my complaint. I suggest you rethink your whole presence on Misplaced Pages if you prefer the sort of online community where the word "jackass" is acceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a squeaky little voice I've not heard in a while. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)