User talk:ClownBojo

Your submission at Articles for creation: Calculating Hubble's Constant using light speed (C) and Pi only (November 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Calculating Hubble's Constant using light speed (C) and Pi only and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Calculating Hubble's Constant using light speed (C) and Pi only, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ClownBojo! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Calculating Hubble's Constant using C and Pi

Hi, I submmitted the short Hubble Constant equation again, after a couple of years break, and it was rejected by "angusWOOF" because there are no valid external references. I am NOT in disagreement with angusWOOF, as what he states is the absolute truth, regarding the lack of references. Can I say here that some time ago I approached a Professor at Imperial College (Kensington) about the Hubble equation, and he readily proposed he re-design the equation layout into a more modern format, and re-word the description. so as to be acceptable in today's scientific journals. He asked if he could be the principle author, using his new title of "Fixing Hubble's Constant" so I said OK, as that was better than no publication. So far, so good. This Professor described the Hubble equation as "elegant". This Professor (who has had published many other scientific papers mentioned on Wikipedia), also has a Wikipedia personal page singing his praises. Once the Hubble equation, and its description was re-worked to a "modern" format, he submitted it for publication in several scientific journals. His efforts were rejected several times, because it's believed Hubble's Constant can ONLY be measured!!! I question that strongly. He then hinted he was warned off by superiors not to "rock the boat" with this equation any more. He then turned quite nasty towards me, hurling abuse, and threatening me with legal action if I mentioned his name, or that of Imperial College in conection with this equation. I believe Imperial College do not know about anything of this at that time, BUT he said they do not agree with the equation either. I'm certain he was doing the approaches to the journals "on the side"????????? I have no intention of falling out with Wikipedia, or any of its volunteer helpers, and I usually go to Wikipedia as the first choice if I want to learn the answer to any question. As this Professor became aggresive towards me (when he realised there was no mileage in it for him), I will gladly supply his name and a copy of his re-write, if you think it's in order to do this. I feel there needs to be something in place to prevent this sort of thing happenning to others who approach members of the Scientific Establishment in innocence. I will now leave this, and rest by your decision, whether it's "for" or "Against" me. My email address for privacy of communication is evad_hine@yahoo.co.uk With very kind regards, ClownBojo ClownBojo (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ClownBojo,

Wikipedia has a number of very strong policies to prevent you moving forward with your idea, specifically Biographies of living persons and No original research. Any claim made about a living person has to be back by strong, reliable sources and that excludes primary documents like correspondence between the two of you or even material like court documents. They have to be published, independently by a secondary source like a book, newspaper, magazine, journal and mainstream media website. Also, all information needs to be verifiable which excludes original research like the equations that you came up with. Basically, Wikipedia is not a platform for "breaking news" or the cutting edge of research, it's an information source for established, mainstream scholarship. So, I don't think it is the proper vehicle for settling your dispute with this professor.

This situation might not seem fair to you but Wikipedia has now been around for 20+ years and its current policies were developed over years of ongoing debate and are pretty much set-in-stone at this point. Many, many innovative thinkers, self-educated philosophers and inventors have come to Wikipedia to publicize their breakthrough ideas and research and we just can not accept any of it until mainstream academia has tested it all out and decided that it is valid.

I think at this point, your best bet is to set up your own website or start a blog where you would have the freedom to print and publish whatever you choose to. All the best, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Liz regarding the Hubble Constant calculating equation

Hi Liz, Thankyou for your reply regarding the Hubble Constant equation. I accept what you say, and did expect a reply of that nature, and it's all accepted in good faith. After all, I am just a guest here. HOWEVER, there are just 2 points I would like to make. The first one is that others have also noticed Wikipedia is becoming "stale" in these fast moving times. A bit like dusty Brittanica bookshelves that are rarely used now. Wikipedia is increasingly becoming simply a "mirror of the establishment" (talking mainly science here), and increasingly "out of touch" with today's public. This will soon render Wikipedia as obsolete and "stuffy" as encyclopedias in bookform!!! This will be reflected in rapidly falling public cash donations!!!!! Perhaps a "progressive" parallel Wikipedia could be set up? -one that seriously caters for things "outside" the staid establishment, such as Astrology, principles of devining, and telepathy experiments etc., etc. YouTube is fast becoming "the new vibrant Wikipedia", and I must admit YouTube is now ALWAYS my first call when referencing something. It's also fun sifting through the Crap for the gems there!!! My second criticism of Wikipedia are the many pages of "self puffery and worship of living establishment approved persons". Once a person has passed on (DEAD), and has acheived something, it's no longer "self puffery advertising", but facts. DEATH changes things, and removes all personal advertising puffery platforms. Anyway, that Professor I had the misfortune to meet is of no interest to me, but I thought it may provide some "outside evidence" for that Hubble equation, other than just my own input. I strongly feel ALL the "self puffery advertising" pages of LIVING establishment approved personnel should be removed from Wikipedia. They now intensly irritate many of today's public. With very kind regards, ClownBogoClownBojo (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi ClownBojo! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Calculating and "fixing" Hubble's Constant using light speed (C) and Pi only., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi ClownBojo! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Calculating Hubble's Constant using the speed of light (C) and Pi only, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Calculating Hubble's Constant using light speed (C) and Pi only

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Calculating Hubble's Constant using light speed (C) and Pi only, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)