Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neptunerover (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 21 February 2010 (→Riddle of the Sphinx?: why me?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

user contributions (selected)

• Neptunerover's initial reply to the OP brought about some improvement to a possibly biased article.
• Neptunerover's work toward the eventual improvement of an article section was honored through a Keep vote of 6 to Zero.

Blocked

The user that started the thread (ANI) was indefinately blocked for continued disruptive editing here (ANI) and elsewhere immediately after his prior 12-hour block expired.

Misplaced Pages is neither MySpace nor a webhost. Per your continued use of this page in that format, this page has been courtesy blanked and locked. You may appeal the above block by mailing your unblock request to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. — Lomn 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection lifted after email exchange with NeptuneRover. — Lomn 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Riddle of the Sphinx?

Were Neptunerover to solve the Riddle of the Sphinx, or a similar modern-day conundrum by making sense of it, could he be released from his indefinite block? How about Colorless green ideas sleep furiously? --Neptunerover (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that riddle makes a whole lot of sense, perfect sense, and I can't believe it's just me! Why does stuff always have to make sense just to me? --Neptunerover (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

This sort of antagonism (the edit summary) is completely inappropriate. Do not repeat this sort of behavior. — Lomn 17:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He came by and reverted me for the very same thing he got blocked for recently, and I also found it interesting that he failed to acknowledge my apology while previously he has seemed eager to discuss my behaviour. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I will do my best to avoid future antagonizing edit summaries (even though he's told me to 'piss off' in more than one of his edit summaries--it's not appropriate, and I shall desist). --Neptunerover (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban and cautionary note

Neptunerover, you are indefinitely topic banned from the reference desks and associated talk page per discussion at ANI. Also note that, while there is some support for an indefinite block, that doesn't seem to have consensus at present. But you should realize that the community is on the verge of exhausting it's good faith an patience, and if you don't demonstrate a willingness and ability to build the encyclopedia, or at least not impede others in the effort, you are likely to be banned from editing anywhere on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Did I respond on the wrong page? I had meant to ask you about the resolution on the other page, since my understanding is that there were other issues involved in that process.

I was also concerned about possible multiple votes by a single individual, although they might not be exactly the same: and --Neptunerover (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Neptunerover, let me explain in the hope that it helps guide your future conduct on wikipedia (if you are ever unblocked):

• A discussion at ANI and other places on wikipedia are not a majority vote; the bolded supports and opposes are simply added for easy visual parsing and as a summary of the expressed opinion (which should ideally justify that summary). As such, while Treasury tag's comments were considered in assessing the consensus, the user's !vote was not double counted. What was much more influential in my judgment were the opinions of users who looked at your original complaint sympathetically and with fresh eyes, only to conclude that you were the one being consistently disruptive at the refdesks and other pages. You'll note that not a single editor at ANI expressed the opinion that your editing on wikipedia was productive and only good faith prevented a consensus for indefinite block from being reached (I see that your post-ban behavior has however led to that conclusion anyway.
• At ANI you did raise the issue of reprimanding SteveBaker and investigating TreasuryTag but I, as others, considered those to be simple red-herrings aimed at distracting attention from your disruptive editing, and those proposals frankly reflected poorly on you. Thus the only issue I addressed while closing the thread was your topic ban and a final warning.

I am not placing this note here simply to make you appreciate how others view your editing, and how close you are to being permanently banned from the project as a net-negative. I realize that you have been indef. blocked now - if you wish to resume editing, you will need to show that you understand why your conduct is considered problematic, and a commitment that it will change. Barring that, I doubt you'll be permitted to contribute any further to this project. Abecedare (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My intelligence mix and manner of understanding and responding to words seems unwelcome here. I'm sure I won't die if I'm not a part of Misplaced Pages, and I'm sure Misplaced Pages will struggle on without my help. This place isn't my life. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I am impressed by the maturity you show in that comment. I wish more editors would realize that (1) preventing someone from editing wikipedia is not a violation of fundamental human rights, and (2) being prevented from editing wikipedia is not a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Each one of us is unsuited for some activity or another by ability or temperament, and it helps if we try to find what interests and suits us rather than try to extend an unpleasant relationship. Wish you the best in whatever activity you take up next. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being an adult. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

awesome paragraph

I consider this an awesome paragraph you wrote on the inflation (cosmology) talk page:

"This effect of infinite redshift is observer dependent--- if you fall through the horizon, you don't see anything peculiar happen. The observers that see infinite redshift are those that are outside the black hole. The mushing up of things near the horizon is an artifact of the mathematics--- you don't have an infinite collection of layers of stuff on the surface of a black hole. The cut-off is quantum mechanical, and the principle which governs how to fix the description of horizons so that they don't pile up layers forever is called the holographic principle. The holographic principle is the only known way to make sense of the external description of a black hole. It cuts out the interior, and tells you that the black hole is described just by the stuff outside the horizon, heuristically (meaning not rigorously) you can imagine that there is a planck-scale thin skin around the black hole, and there is nothing going on inside this skin."

Because what you wrote made sense to me, I'm curious if this makes sense to you: I see the interior of a black hole as being the same thing as the exterior of the galaxy, with the boundary of a black hole being just another external boundary of the 'set' of stuff. Inside a black hole there is no stuff; it's just another part of the empty set that surrounds everything. Would mine be a holographic interpretation? Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this response is a little late now. Thank you for your comments. The holographic principle applies where there are gravitational horizons, locations where time seems to stop for an observer at a certain place. This doesn't happen for galaxies. I think your question was more philosophical than physical.Likebox (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no late. Thank you. Philosophical sounds like me. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Time Cube my mistake

Hey, you're right; my bad. These clocks on here screw me up--they're all different. Who really knows when one day ends and another one begins? One score and four hours is all relative. Oops. Goodness--I just realized, I have to tell Steve--time is not just a cube, it's Double Cubed! because there are 20 and four equal hours in each day, which still equal each other even when they are longer or shorter days. It's incredible. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Caption1
• Caption2
• File:! header 1
• File:! header 2
• File:! header 3