User talk:Neptunerover: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:46, 5 February 2010

Notice: This is not an area for social networking, and anyone coming here for social networking has come to the wrong place and is advised to leave. This user is not interested in social networking. Anything interpreted here as social networking is being incorrectly interpreted.

Greetings. This is my talk page. I organise it top-to-bottom in a manner which makes sense to me, although I can't expect that it should make sense to others. Anyone wishing to do so may begin a new section, but just be advised that it is likely to be moved by me, and so be sure to look before assuming I have erased it. I am usually against erasing things. Anyone who has anything they are worried about should first read the worry-free zone announcement at §1.

Announcement: This is Now a Worry Free Zone

Collapsed warning for Lawyers or anyone else worried about getting theirs

You are now all free to worry, so please, feel free from worry now.
Worrying is a freedom one needn't exercise, so please feel free not to worry. Please.

Note: Anyone interested in worrying: 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. Otherwise, please don't waste your time worrying.

Always keep in mind that worries are not a requirement in Freespace.

Proposals on choice of Her Majesty

In accordance with Her Majesty's choice

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 Don't project
4 Don't connect
5 Protect
6 Don't expect
7 Suggest
8 Don't move
9 Don't talk out of time
10 Don't think
11 Don't worry
12 Everything's just fine ^[1]

available android models for Her Majesty

android models being modeled by Her Majesty

^ the last 10 proposals here are adopted from Numb by U2 from their album Zooropa.

Sometimes relationships don't go as planned
Some girls, can make themselves so cold
A no-mans land
You've learnt no lessons all those years to get it right
Flashes of promise burnt out faster than strobe light.
— XTC

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

Hello Neptunerover and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Very Important Links

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Page Break Photo

File:20050825 1.jpg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Incorrect label of "vandalism"

Resolved

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 $\aleph _{0}$ (aleph zero), which means there are a countably infinite number of rationals. — Lomn 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Protectorate Zone

*"The Angelic Council"* ("Ангелскй Собор"). Eastern Orthodox Church icon of the "Seven Archangels." From left to right: St Jehudiel, St Gabriel, St Selatiel, St Michael, St Uriel, St Raphael, St Barachiel. Beneath the mandorla of Christ Emmanuel are representations of Cherubim (blue) and Seraphim (red).

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost. This kind of personal essay/speculation on a topic unconnected with editing Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Theaterwide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare

hiding presumed angry content

*If you read WP:NOTWEBHOST (which I linked to before), you'll find that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Meet Jules
Jules is my guard dog.
When somebody really wants him to bite, then he bites. The collapsed sections are being watched by him, and shall be dealt with all in their good time. Choosing to defend the wrongfully accusing is a freely made choice which Jules considers suspicious. In such a case, avoidance of eye contact is strictly advised. Consider it best to be مؤدّب.

Neptunerover, hiding people's comments in boxes like that (and calling them "spam" ~~and "troll[ing]"~~) 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)[reply]

No one has explained to me what I have done wrong. I require only what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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

File:Turamichele-2007-4.jpg

Turamichele (Tower-Michael) in Augsburg, Germany.
'Sweeping away evil, I mop the Floor with you.'

Resolved

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

The box at User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything links to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Thank you. I understand better the situation now. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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 Wikipedia website http://wikipedia.org as a web host. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the policy I was able to find Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion. I believe it applies extremely well in my case. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 sensicalness^[1]of anything in the article, they can leave an inquiry on any of my numerous talk pages.^[2]-- Neptunerover (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

مؤدّب

Note to self:

It's a symptom of low self esteem when someone only accepts the negative comments directed at them. It's very common for people to pick and chose that which is sincere around them, so why not chose for the positive? (Without being a fool, of course) Please see Being There with Peter Sellers as Chance. Eve is there too. She only comes around when you're nice. Innocence assumes nothing but that which is innocent. Worry is a sickness.

Oh mirror in the sky, what is love? Can the child in my heart rise above?
— Fleetwood Mac

Slow motion risers cloud the colors of the day,
Bronze man still can tell stories his own way,
Listen children all is not lost, all is not lost,
Oh no, no.
A real celebration waiting for us all if we want it really want it.
Will you help him change the world? Can you dig it? (yes I can)
I've been waiting such a long time
for today.
— Chicago

[an interesting discussion]

[[1]] [[2]]

Use of non-free images in user space

Resolved

Extended discussion concerning images and their allowed use on Wikipedia

Please note that I have removed the screenshot image from User talk:Neptunerover/The Only Alternative Economic Solution We Have - it is not appropriate to use non-free use images in user space. The same applies to the Star Wars images on this talk page -- please remove them. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

(edit conflict)Please do not use non-free images in your user space. It is against our copyright policy. -SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they in Commons if they aren't supposed to be free? -Neptunerover (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

I was under the impression that the images in Commons are freely available, which is why I was using them in my user space. Were the images I used not from Commons or am I mistaken about what Commons is? Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image that I removed - File:Grind07 Grindhouse.jpg - is not on Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I guess I didn't realize that not all of the photos used in Wikipedia are free use. It seems odd to me. The photo in question says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" right under it's name on the file page. If it's not for free use, why is it here? --Neptunerover (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And above all Ukexpat, I don't mean to bother you with this question, since I'm sure you don't make the rules. Can you direct me to where I should go to figure this out? Thank you very kindly. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general when a free image is not available, a non-free one may be used in an article if certain conditions are met. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for details on this. But the current rule is that no such image may be used for any purpose in userspace. Every image has (or should have) a detailed statement of licensing on its image description page. Before using any image anywhere, you should check that statement. See also Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of non-text media. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you've been helpful, and I thank you. I just wish it was clearer. It should say "non-free" right at the top. I just got some new guard dogs on here, but one was not from commons, so I'm not entirely sure if I'm gonna be able to keep him. I'm sure someone will let me know if I do something wrong though (they always do), so I guess I shouldn't worry. --Neptunerover (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now here [[3]] is one that definitely says non-free boldly in various places on it's page. I don't remember noticing that on the others. Although actually, I might have just copied some of those photo links directly from an article page since I was just under the impression that everything on Wikipedia is free and all the pictures come out of commons. I was naive.
So can I ask you (or is there a better place for me to ask) why an advertisement for a movie such as the one I just linked to above is not considered free? They put those all over the place when the movie came out, in magazines, newspapers, and on the posters in the theaters. They put the stuff all over the place for us to look at, but we can't use it? It's not like I would draw a moustache on his face or put him in a dress, which would be defacing an original advertisement, but why can't I put the add out there too? I should think they would like that! They had to pay for that advertisement the first time around, but now they don't want anyone to look at it unless they get paid? That can't be right. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk/_contribs 11:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ^talk/_contribs 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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 ^talk/_contribs 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed content

Only if you promise not to send me hate mail. =) Let's try to keep hate out of this. Actually Rjanag, I don't think you are hateful, or rather how would I know?, but the thing is that some people here I think definitely are, and so giving them access to my email could open me up to the reception of all sorts of angry comments about webhost and quackery and .. well, you've seen all the angry things people call me and say about me, so perhaps you understand why I cannot do that just yet. I'll see if I can get the page back on my own somehow. Thank you for offering to help me. --Neptunerover (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is how you feel, I seriously suggest you take a look back and re-examine your own behavior. You are going around admonishing other editors for being "hateful" and impolite ([4]), but look at how you yourself are acting. Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a "hater" or a jerk is, in of itself, impolite and not very understanding. You are not doing yourself any favors by repeatedly leaving rude messages at the MfD page or by snarkily accusing every editor who disagrees with you of "biting". All that does is make people think you're immature. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of my activities. Rude messages? I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't accused anyone of biting who hasn't actually bit. And who says I'm accusing anyone anyway? You. I simply gave some people reminders of the way things are supposed to work around here. You may not like it, but I'm new here, and new people here are almost expected to make mistakes. I'm only allowing the angry people to show themselves. I personally don't get angry. It's far beneath my level of logic. I'm sorry, but If anyone thinks Commander Spock is mean and cold, that is merely their irrelevant opinionated projection. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW just in case it's too far above you, I never called anyone a hater. My comment on the MfD page was a "what if?" You take things too personally. I think you should re-examine the behavior of all involved participants in these discussions. You say I called someone a jerk, and that is a flat out lie. That's not my style at all, and I dare you to try and back up your statement. If by some chance I did call someone a jerk, then it was only because they called me one first, which begs the question of just who the jerk is. I respond in kind and I try not to assume things which are not evident based upon the available facts. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On Wikipedia

collapse box

Wikipedia must necessarily be constrained. It can't be everything to everyone. There's a lot of things that people want Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 ^talk 12:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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"

Jan 12 Nomination notification

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 Wikipedia: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. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

It was deleted, then restored. See the deletion log: [5]. –xeno^talk 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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^talk 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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?/_dude. 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt jackass was a vague enough reference. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Hello.

funny extinct bird picture

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done

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

results of MFD nomination

Resolved

– 26 January 2010 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense

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 Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Complaint about your recent posts to the Ref Desk.

A complaint here raised not in accordance with the Wikipedia rules regarding how to properly deal with reference requests and factual disputes.
Those rules copied below with the relevant parts in bold.

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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thank you for the clarity. I enjoy clarity. Especially the New Improved Clarity. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference requests and factual disputes

While we should keep the Wikipedia 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.

(The above paragraph is copied from a Wikipedia rule regarding answering reference desk questions. The added emphasis is mine.) --Neptunerover (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvited antagonizing commentary with ensuing argument leading to 12 hr block

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are so false Lomn, I see right through you. What is that a page of you pointed out there? You brought it up as evidence, but I'm guessing you read almost none of it. That whole page keeps track for me of communications with others, and most of the stories have happy endings where misunderstandings are cleared up. Why would you come here to cast doubt upon that which has been previously cleared up? You say you're watching me, and you know what that means. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia if you prefer the sort of online community where the word "jackass" is acceptable. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then you stalked me and tried to find another MFD but you couldn't. The one you did find went completely not in your favor, making you look like whatever you want to think it made you look like, and since I know, I don't need to say it. --Neptunerover (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pyro may be a god among insects because he can control the fire, but without understanding the fire, all he can burn are insects.

February 2010

12 hour block notification with commentary proving me the center of attention for so many people who just couldn't leave me alone

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for personal attacks, e.g. here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sucks is that I am blocked from the incident report page. I've gotta protect myself!
I mean, he got up. After I put enough lead in him to drop a rhino, he got up! --Neptunerover (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune, while you're waiting this block out (and hopefully reviewing your behaviour), you may also want to think about how WP:ANI works. It's not a "referendum" on anyone in particular. Editors are free to bring issues there which they feel require attention and action by administrators. However, you don't get to fix the terms of what is being discussed, the editors making the review do. The aim of the reviewers is to decide how to fix the problem and this requires consideration of the behaviour of all parties to the problem. It actually happens quite often that the initiator of the thread finds themselves on the wrong end of resulting sanctions, in fact there's an essay about just that. Franamax (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up my WP:ANI confusion. That makes good sense, of course. Hopefully the 'blue wall' will still be able to examine one of its own no matter that my side is open to bombardment. I was curious why his behaviour keeps being excused by others. --Neptunerover (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by blue wall you mean an analogy to cops sticking together, don't worry, there are lots of different onlookers. Rumors of a cabal pretty much always turn out to be just that. If you mean the RD regulars, yes they (we) stick together very much on the ethos of the Desks, although there are many passionate discussions around the grey areas. There is a core group though who are determined to keep the Desks focussed on their actual function, which is to politely and knowledgably answer other people's questions. Lots of people come along and wish the desks were a discussion forum, a soapbox, a place to make wisecracks, a place to insert their own speculation, etc. - both questioners and answerers. So there is constant need for "pushback" from those who don't want them to turn into Yahoo! Answers.

As far as Steve's behaviour, he doesn't get a free pass, he gets talked to, sometimes privately. But there's not enough there to be a big enough concern. He has explained before (and explained to you too in a recent thread) some of the basis for the way he interacts with other people. He doesn't get upset with people so much as he responds forcefully to unscientific views presented with the guise of scientificity. (Is that a word? :) And he's an absolute top contributor at the Desks, most of the time when he responds in a thread it's unquestionably the best one, often to a degree where all the other responses could just be erased. Steve never gets snappy with people who present a logical sequence of argument backed up with sources. He might seem disruptive to you just now, but on objective examination I'm not sure your case is supportable. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Yahoo! Answers. I wonder if that's where they are. I don't doubt what you say about Steve's capabilities. His manner of response toward me is what I find to be problematic. He makes a big argument when there are better approaches. I need to collect up all the examples. It's only been a month and 1/2, so there can't be that many. He argues and argues and draws me in like a fisherman. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about other people's approaches, worry about your own. If by "makes a big argument" you mean that he's right and you're wrong, well, too bad about that. If you mean his specific approach and wording, sure maybe they could be better, but there's a simple solution. Change your own approach to be more in line with how Wikipedia operates but still accomplish what you can contribute positively here. I mean really, it's not like Steve is the only editor who seems to be having a problem with your way of editing here. Maybe focussing on them is an easy way to avoid having to scrutinize your own actions, such scrutiny being performed by yourself? It's not like people are leaping to your defence here. Either everyone else is wrong! or perhaps you may be a tiny bit wrong too and there is some middle ground. Take your pick. Franamax (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes a big argument When I asked a question on the Science ref desk one time, rather than inform me right away that I had come to the wrong place with my question, Steve starts a big long argument pointing fingers and giving advice[wrong, wrong, wrong], and then after the argument had gone on for some time, then I get attacked for causing the whole argument in the first place with my question. The question didn't start the argument though. I could easily have been told to take my question elsewhere. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I done got trolled, didn't I? Aww shucks, I should have known better than to respond as if there were actual sounds being emitted by the words on the screen. People are such believers in the impossible. I was caught. --Neptunerover (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My CPU is a neuronetprocessor; a learning computer.

Man, this boredom is killing me... "Hey, anybody else in the hole here?" "How about a game of talk page battleship?" "Hellloooo... "

You may find it more productive to spend your time thinking about what aspects of your own behaviour you could change so that other editors here would have a more positive outlook on your edits. Convincing yourself that it is all somebody else's fault rarely works out well in my experience. Another way to spend the time is to shut the computer off and go for a walk. My personal favourite is to watch birds foraging and think about the challenges they face in their own lives and how little they care about my human problems. I usually end up back at the computer wondering just what it was I was so all-fired upset about anyway. Just some alternatives... Franamax (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These guys could totally have done something like that previously. If I leave a poor answer, starting an argument and yelling at me isn't going to help me. But if someone were to say something like, hey, that's interesting, but it's not really on topic. When is the last time you got some rest Neptunerover?

I believe in "Don't let the bastards get you down", from the U2 song on Achtung Baby. It's a lyric in the song, though I can't say just which song. Luckily this is only a talk page. I'll need that citation though when I go to use it elsewhere. --Neptunerover (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acrobat (song) - it's mentioned in our article. Yeah buddy, you need to work on your research skills. ;) Franamax (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But a secret is something you tell one other person. --Neptunerover (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Illegitimi non carborundum, it goes way back before U2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "grind" you down in the song? Was I way off that much? --Neptunerover (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough that it's typical of the problem that's being pointed out to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that typical, you better be able to explain it better than that. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd best lay down the quill and take the advice that's being offered to you here to heart, because it you don't, you're heading toward an indefinite block -- maybe not today or tomorrow, but somewhere in your future. That's not a threat, I'm not an admin and have no power to block you, it's a prediction based on observation of other editors with attitudes similar to yours.

Wikipedia is, for the most part, a meritocracy, which means that people who contribute a great deal to the project are given a little more leeway in their behavior -- it's not a free pass, and even great content contributors will, eventually, be blocked if their continued level of incivlity and disruption finally gets the community fed up.  People who don't contribute on the other hand, or contribute very little, get a good amount of AGF, but it doesn't last forever, and the trigger gets pulled pretty fast once it dissipates.  It seems to me that you're being warned that you're in danger of running out of AGF, but you appear to feel invulnerable behind that shield.  That's a fool's paradise you're living in, my friend, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like coffee. I got 5 kinds today. How many days can you stay awake? --Neptunerover (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, I see nothing but people assuming bad faith. My every move is considered suspicious due to previous suspicion cast my way. I'm generally happy to explain anything to anyone who wonders what the hell it was that I meant when I said something, as long as they are civil toward me. The sheer rarity of civility from others is my dilemma. Certain others at least. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see how it is - don't ever say that no one tried to help you. I'm disengaging now, per WP:DFTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"But no one tried to help me." Neptunerover (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Hey Neptune, I hope that you have a chance for some reflection over this 12 hours. I would love to see you become an excellent contributor like you could be, but you're sabotaging yourself right now. Take some time and look at the things people have said to you (including myself), but look at it without thinking that they're all out to get you. You'll probably find that everyone here is willing to work with you and to give you a reasonable chance at becoming a good editor, but you've gotta get on board with the project. I am not a mentor, but if you're looking for someone to help you understand the rules and roles here, and to be a friendly voice of caution when you might be a little over the edge of what is acceptable, I'd be willing to work with you on that. And, just so you know, I'm not an Admin, just an editor who keeps an eye on ANI in the hopes of being able to resolve things without blocks and such (though I'm willing to support them when they're needed). Think about it and let me know either here, or on my talk page what you think about it. Frmatt (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously thank you Frmatt. You're not trying to be bossy, and I respect your approach greatly. You didn't tell me to reflect; you expressed actual feelings of concern through an offer of friendship. You give me hope. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Life

I have time now to go into the story that APL is eager to spread. I was going to respond elsewhere, but I am currently blocked APL has a section on APL's talk page that I began with the title "I do it for fun", after which I tried answering a question he had asked in one of his edit remarks during this [[6]] MFD. Not one person voted in favor of the MFD, yet APL introduced some remark about how there was good reason for me to be singled out, even if the MFD was inappropriate. I responded appropriately for my situation, and he stated in his next edit summary, " Jeez, you've practically got to be a *lawyer* to speak to Neptune. I can't tell if he does that on purpose or not, but it's anoying." [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Neptunerover/Bertrand_Russell_on_Common_Sense&diff=339095610&oldid=339092121 ]]

On his talk page I then began the "I do it for fun" section in hopes of enlightening him as to how I myself do not get annoyed. I should've known my meaning would get all twisted up. I must point out that just because I consider it a chess game doesn't mean shit. That may be how I view life, and that can only mean what it means to me, because nobody else knows. They can only point fingers and say, "he thinks it's all just a game!" As if they know what that means to me. I don't hurt people in my game. I don't throw stones or tethers. And most of all, I don't play the game to win. I play for the love of the game, since that's what the game of life is: to love it here, and now. I'm not waiting until I win life before I enjoy it. Who says I'm even gonna win? Who knows? If I worry about the future, I'm damned in the present. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uninvited commentary and subsequent argument concerning this concept section (collapsed for brevity)

If the comment to APL were a single isolated comment, you might have a case. Of course, it's not -- you've repeated the thought more than once. Right or wrong, the community is swiftly concluding that you're here to troll; the section below is ample evidence of that. Here's my suggestion: drop the commentary. Intent and manner are notoriously hard to convey in the written word, and your comments, whatever your original intent, are presently being judged in the worst possible light. If you drop the commentary, accusations, defenses, and such, and just contribute, this will pass quickly. — Lomn 02:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you as one of the fishermen here Lomn. Why did you come here and fan the flames of a previously resolved incident? Have you read WP:DFTT? Were you checking to see if I learned my lesson before? Did TreasuryTag show up to test my willpower? Do you not consider that fanning the flames? Specifically, what was your purpose with this [[7]] edit here, if not to antagonize me? Some helpful advice? --Neptunerover (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I post that bit? Because your conduct is problematic -- specificially with regards to antagonizing other users, apparently for your own amusement. So yes, that post and the one above are intended to point out the specific bits of your behavior that need to stop. "Arbitrary accusations of trollery" could be added to that list, if you like. — Lomn 14:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How very touching Lomn that you should be my buddy and advise me on the way you think I should act. Funny thing is, I don't remember asking for your help. I ask you, who is antagonizing who? You are the one who brought up all this shit on my talk page earlier. You really feel innocent in this like you didn't come her to fan the flames? Then why are you here? Unless you are worried about something, you came here to antagonize me. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Lomn you don't have the right to worry on my behalf, since you first have to be initiated in order to be worried about me. This is a worry free zone, and if you wish to initiate a worry, please do so at the bottom of the page in a new section. Thank you for your concern. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblock?

Unsuccessful 12 hour block dropping request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neptunerover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry if I mislead anyone. There is no voice, squeaky or otherwise, coming from the words on my computer. The very idea that it qualifies as a personal attack is ludicrous. The statement makes no sense in this environment. In any case, just what about the words "squeaky little voice" are considered so bad? If someone takes offense, that is because they themselves are biased against squeaky little voices, thus calling their judgment of the issue into question. From what I am aware, there is nothing wrong with people assigning names to the voices in their head, and if someone assigns voices to the words before his eyes, I wouldn't think that's too much different. I forgot we're not supposed to talk directly to the voices (again). My mistake was in talking to the voice as such rather than in responding to the person who made the words. I understand now, and I feel the block could be lifted, please

Decline reason:

No evidence of intent to change behavior that led to block or to avoid further disruptive pattern of editing, therefore block stands to prevent further disruption. DMacks (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is yet more of the same: "only a jackass would know that jackass was pejorative" and now if you find "squeaky little voice" offensive it's because you yourself think there's something wrong with squeaky little voices, because I just used a random phrase. I'd recommend either a lengthening of the current block to continue preventing on-wiki disruption that seems vitrually certain to occur, or an unblock so the by-now-almost-inevitable permablock can be blamed on other people too, just a little more quickly. My AGF is pretty much eroded here, I'll disengage as much as I can now. Franamax (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider you guys to be trolling for me, and that's that. And let me guess, if I insinuate trolling, it's bad, however when it's pointed at me, it's okay. That statement was crap next to things Steve has said to me. I immediately get blocked for that. What a joke. What a trap. Your guys's little web here caught a fly. Sounds yummy.--Neptunerover (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can surely imagine TreasuryTag's glee when, upon coming back to my talk page once again to defend his honor, I anointed him with hideous slander. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a diff to show where on earth I've been trolling you. I've been trying to help you, up 'til now. Every one of the editors in the [February...] section above have been trying to help you. I'm not responsible for your contrary perception. Franamax (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False help unrequested and uninvited. A sidetrack for me away from the relevant issues in the ANI. Attempts by selfish users to take control of me and tell me what I should do. If I rebel from this trap, well then it's a big argument blamed on me, and the ANI gets turned and hammered against me. "Boing" Luna Santin was one person who came here with a seriously appropriate line of inquiry. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just above here you suggested "a lengthening of the current block". Is that not trolling for me? The current block was brought about by vendetta. TreasuryTag has no reason to come and make a comment to me unless he's fishing for something. He's an opportunist who's been waiting for over a month to come back here. His feelings are still hurt no matter how much I said sorry to him. [[8]]--Neptunerover (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you know how I feel. I don't understand DIFFs, but I'll get some together. I understand that is something I need to put together here. I'm probably going to take a nap now though.. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "jackass" was resolved in a previous WP:ANI. For Lomn to introduce it again out of context and then TreasuryTag coming back here to comment further about it is what I consider baiting. Baiting is used when trolling. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given it seems to imply a history of personal attacks and a problematic attitude once others object to those attacks, it seems relevant to me. If you have some diffs where others are egging you on, please post them; if not, I don't think "it's only insulting if they decide to deserve it" is a very good line of argument, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Luna Santin if something's not incredibly clear here to you, but what you suggest is begging the question. You say it seems relevant for him to bring up an implication of a history of personal attacks, but he brought that up first, which is what fanned the flames leading to the more recent "squeaky voice" personal attack dilemma. He would've had to know the relevance in advance, which is not logical. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link. [[9]] Study this and see what happened. It was

Resolved

--Neptunerover (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the thread was marked as having been resolved after you were warned about such remarks; a second warning was more direct on the matter. Far from taking them to imply amnesty, I should think that those warnings would remind a user that similar behavior would be less tolerated in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutly. It's just a few sections above here where it all really took place. [[10]] Please don't cherry pick just the bad parts. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your 'first' and 'second' warnings took place concurrently, if you notice, making neither additionally necessary as your comment could be taken to imply. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you saw them both, didn't you? They're warnings that you're supposed to learn from. They're not there for you to look for loopholes to excuse your actions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same guy as before. That incident was resolved, though not to his satisfaction, and it doesn't matter if I say sorry to him. He wants blood. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Consider please that it is the very same person as before this time, who came here to reengage me about the very thing that was resolved before. I've said sorry to him more than a couple of times. Since he filed the WP:ANI on me previously for a personal attack on this very page, why would he come back to my talk page? To discuss once again something that was resolved before? Or to bait me into an argument? He told me to piss off when I went to his talk page. If that even matters, I can provide DIFFs. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found one. Steve called me a name. Here, look [[11]]. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, "miscreant"? I do that every time I play a practical joke, I just don't do it on Wikipedia. Nope, sorry, not getting your point. But as to the reason I came here again, how often do you check your en:wiki email address? Franamax (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That old thing? Sometimes. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of egging me on, when I asked a question on the Science ref desk one time, rather than inform me right away that I had come to the wrong place with my question, the first person to answer does so using a big long statement pointing fingers and giving advice[wrong, wrong, wrong], and then later, after the argument had gone on for some time, the whole argument got blamed on me for posting an inappropriate question. Why didn't they say that right off the go? I could easily have been told to take my question elsewhere. I say egging me on. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [#1] and [#2] --Neptunerover (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, and I'm sure Wikipedia will struggle on without my help. This place isn't my life. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Blocked

The user that started the thread (ANI) was indefinately blocked themselves for continued disruptive editing here (ANI) and elsewhere immediately after his prior 12-hour block expired--Jayron32 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuous disruptive and tendentious editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Smashville^talk 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. But I had just started to write an important essay called User:Neptunerover/Sticks and Stones on why the world can't get along. It's all very simple you see. Wikipedia is very much like the world. The world is full of victims who psychologically victimize themselves. Anyone who reads that (admittedly incomplete) essay and feels a stabbing in their heart is doing their own stabbing and giving all their power away to be a victim. The world loves to be a victim. "Oh, woe to me; somebody please pat me on the back" Only if you stand up straight. C'mon, chin up. The World is only mean to you if you let it be, and if you let words hurt you, you're in for a world of hurt.

Oh, another wrong of the world: people who try to 'help' others for their own selfish reasons while convincing themselves they are doing something good. Good doesn't come from selfishness. I decline help from the selfish, no matter if their help is telling me how to step into line or not. If I'm doing something wrong, please point that out if you can do so politely (no "bullshit"), but if you try telling me what I should do, I'm gonna tell you what you can do. This includes any email telling me just what eggshells I should be walking on. Unrequested advice is a serpent which I smash. Show me the rule, but don't tell me how to follow it.

We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files.
We'd like to help you learn to help yourself.
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes.
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home.
— Simon & Garfunkel

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Talkback to Jimmy

Hello, Neptunerover. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you Jimmy. (sorry I can't message on your page) I know I get my money's worth here no matter what the case. Your appeal really touched my heart, and I just couldn't let you down. I could tell how much it means to you. I wish you all the best.
--St. Michael
P.S. Sorry if I got a little overjoyous here in Paradise. It won't happen again.
P.P.S. Sorry. What can I say, I'm embarrassed. I've reverted vandalism of PG-13 juvenile humor in the past, and here I find that I myself have made juvenile potty-humor statements out of boredom and sleepless giddiness, such as my response to a serious question about green gas. I'm am not surprised at my temporary lack of professionalism, though I do apologize and promise that it will not to occur again. No more games. --Neptunerover (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you put a "Talkback" on your page purporting to be from Jimbo Wales? Bielle (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a "Talkto", and I can't put a "Talkback" on his page (or even on his secretary's). I titled the section "Talkback to" in hopes of avoiding confusion over the incorrect template. I see that might not have worked though, so I'm sorry for the confusion. --Neptunerover (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a myspace

This is a talk page. Please feel free to stay away. This is not Myspace. This is not a place for social networking.
This is not a place to seek friendship. This editor is blocked indefinitely, giving no reason for anyone to come here at all.
Please don't come here to talk to him. It is far best to ignore him.
This is not Myspace.

[1] the last 10 proposals here are adopted from Numb by U2 from their album Zooropa.

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

[3] Thank you Bus stop

[1]

[1]

[2]