This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I noticed that if you look in the Extraterrestrial life category on the bottom page, the article is in "Misidentified signals" sub-category. Can you please explain how this can be misidentified signal because there is no 100% verified explanation at all and never was, so how can the signal be misidentified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F4wEX (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your contributions before posting them. I do not understand your question, the entry in the Extraterrestrial life article on Wikipedia does not feature "Misidentified signals" and only gives a accurate mention of current Wow! signal knowledge? David J Johnson (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I also see the wow signal listed as misidentified in the Template:Extraterrestrial life as shown in the Wow! signal article. It doesn't look like a correctr categorization, as this is the only signal which is truly unexplainable, we just have no idea what it was, so we cannot claim that it was misidentified. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Query on ResponseIn 2012, on the 35th anniversary of the Wow! signal, Arecibo Observatory beamed a response from humanity, containing 10,000 Twitter messages, in the direction from which the signal originated. In the response, Arecibo scientists have attempted to increase the chances of intelligent life receiving and decoding the celebrity videos and crowd-sourced tweets by attaching a repeating sequence header to each message that will let the recipient know that the messages are intentional and from another intelligent life form. Did I read this right? Someone has sent Twitter messages into space and whatever out there is supposed to interpret this as intelligent life? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)PJJ
Suggest you keep your POV edits to other sources on the internet and not on this Talk page, which should be for improving the article. David J Johnson (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the recent revert to my edit: I have never in my life heard "half-vast" as anything but an intentional pun, nor can I find any examples online which are not intentional puns. Perhaps then it's less worth mentioning(?), but suggesting it isn't a pun by default seems ludicrous to me. There's nothing "half-vast" could be but an intentional pun, because those words don't make sense together. I could source definitions for the pun online if a source is needed (there are many but I'd have to look to make it encyclopedic), but again: are there any editors who actually, honestly think this could not be a pun? TricksterWolf (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, you are still making this a "Point of View" edit without any source or reference. The quote is a accurate representation of Jerry's remark and he is not a person to engage in puns. Please remember that Wikipedia relies on confirmed sources and not speculation. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)