User talk:Whoghouta
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Whoghouta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
[edit]Your user name is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Because your only edits thus far have been to a talk page, although even those have been promotional, I have not blocked you. I suggest you request a policy-compliant user name at WP:CHUS, bearing in mind that regardless of your user name, you cannot use Wikipedia to promote your blog.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your additional post to the article talk page. The web page you are promoting is not reliable, and is not adequate to form the basis for changes to the article. I echo Bbb23's invitation for you to change your username and discuss edits to the article that are instead based on reliable, secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I wasn't really trying to contribute. It was just interesting to see the article build on so much wrong evidence, and I thought I'd help by pointing it out. This is a special case where most of the world really wants one story to be true, so no one is taking the time to contradict the analysis done by biased sources. The only ones doing so are not what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. This is more of a bug in the Wikipedia process that just rarely happens. I hope the raw evidence will eventually overcome the interests and biases. Let's see... Whoghouta (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's really not that unusual. In many articles, there exists a related fringe viewpoint and editors that believe that this fringe viewpoint represents a Great Truth that must be communicated. Examples would include 9/11 conspiracists, young earth creationists, and perpetual motion enthusiasts. So, we need an objective system to evaluate how to treat these fringe claims. What we use is a process rooted in our core value of verifiability - as a tertiary source we look at the available reliable sources and summarize article content based on those. More specifically, your claims that nearly everyone is biased and wrong do not really stack up, but since Wikipedia is not a forum and we do not do our own original research, going into the details of why is something of a distraction when your claims have not been published in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- The three examples you give are cases where the evidence for the mainstream view is overwhelming. This is far from the case here. The evidence is very sparse and the only thing being reported in reliable sources is speculation. I just saw the Wikipedia page going towards an embarrassing direction and wanted to help out. I now realize this would require changing the whole WP policy, so I'll leave it be. Anyway, I recommend you read the evidence at the blog just so you get a feel (personally, not as an editor) at how bad the situation is. Thank you! Whoghouta (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I did read the blog. I perused it in its entirety but had mentally discounted it as unreliable (in the practical rather than Wikipedia sense) when it used the performance specs of hobby rocket engines as the basis for estimating the range of the 330mm rocket. In general, the physics presented struck me as quite naive. Definitely not the sort of stuff that is going to convince anyone outside of the credulous conspiracy theory crowd. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- The type of motor has little effect on range. It's volume is by far the most important factor - And indeed the simulation worked well in predicting other artillery rocket ranges. You're also ignoring that we have a launch video showing its range. But you're more than welcome to provide contradicting evidence and I'll change the estimate. What about the wrong trajectory calculations in the UN report? You don't find them bothering?
- I am a mechanical engineer and am willing to give you more detail regarding corrections to your analysis, but Wikipedia is the wrong forum for that. If you wish, you can email me using the link under "toolbox" shown to the left. If you create a new user account addressing the problems listed by Orangemike below, feel free to contact me on my user talk page as well. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- The type of motor has little effect on range. It's volume is by far the most important factor - And indeed the simulation worked well in predicting other artillery rocket ranges. You're also ignoring that we have a launch video showing its range. But you're more than welcome to provide contradicting evidence and I'll change the estimate. What about the wrong trajectory calculations in the UN report? You don't find them bothering?
- Personally, I did read the blog. I perused it in its entirety but had mentally discounted it as unreliable (in the practical rather than Wikipedia sense) when it used the performance specs of hobby rocket engines as the basis for estimating the range of the 330mm rocket. In general, the physics presented struck me as quite naive. Definitely not the sort of stuff that is going to convince anyone outside of the credulous conspiracy theory crowd. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- The three examples you give are cases where the evidence for the mainstream view is overwhelming. This is far from the case here. The evidence is very sparse and the only thing being reported in reliable sources is speculation. I just saw the Wikipedia page going towards an embarrassing direction and wanted to help out. I now realize this would require changing the whole WP policy, so I'll leave it be. Anyway, I recommend you read the evidence at the blog just so you get a feel (personally, not as an editor) at how bad the situation is. Thank you! Whoghouta (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.
You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you.
Wikipedia is not here to promote your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)