User talk:Cosmo0/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Cosmo0! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! AFUSCO 16:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. You might also find twinkle helpful for reverting vandalism. Thanks CO 17:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I should have done that. Thanks. Cosmo0 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

y did u delete my article? by doing that u ruined all my hopes and dreams i hope u know!!! please go 2 biography of patrick star talk page and read my comment!!!!! > : ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilbunnifoofoo (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ok HOLD ON it wont let me go 2 my article! hey, u deleted it already didnt u?!? that makes me very sad, because now no one else can enjoy its wonders ALL THNKS 2 U!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilbunnifoofoo (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 October 2007

First of all, please sign your comments, so I know who you are. Secondly, since I'm not an admin, I cannot and did not delete your article. Cosmo0 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

...if i didnt sign then how do u know i wrote that...?

from --Lilbunnifoofoo 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC) lol

There's always a way...every page on Wikipedia has a history that lists all changes and who made them. Cosmo0 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah well u tagged it and id like an explanation!

--Lilbunnifoofoo 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I tagged your article for speedy deletion because it met one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest you take a look at them for more information, in particular WP:SD#G1 and WP:SD#A1. If you are interested in the subject then you might want to consider making a contribution to the existing article about Patrick Star (you may have to wait a few days because editing of that article is disabled for accounts less than 4 days old). Cosmo0 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

I've edited, Hubble volume again. I hope it's OK this time.Barbara Shack 11:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I like what you've done with the structure of the article. It still needs some work, which I hope you'll help with. I've made one or two changes to the opening paragraph, as you'll see (in particular, I've changed the word 'area' to 'volume', which is more scientifically accurate). Cosmo0 23:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• I’ve written quite a bit about astronomy, cosmology etc. I’d appreciate critical scientific reviews. For example have I interpreted Many-Worlds quantum mechanics correctly in Rare Earth hypothesis?Barbara Shack 14:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to reply - I had to think about this one for a while. First of all, I'm not an expert on quantum mechanics but your description of the many worlds interpretation seems correct to me. As far as it's application to the rare Earth hypothesis goes, these are just a few thoughts:

• The rare Earth hypothesis seems to be largely concerned with the likelihood of there being more than one Earth-like planet in our universe so, in that sense, the existence of other, parallel universes is probably not relevant; if the emergence of life is highly improbable then it is still unlikely to happen more than once in a given universe, albeit the chances of it happening at all are increased by the existence of many, parallel universes (if you keep tossing a coin then you'll eventually get a head, but the chance of getting a second one immediately after is still only 50/50).
• The emergence of life (as we know it) is still by no means an inevitable outcome, if the fundamental physical constants are not fine-tuned to allow the formation of stars, planets, etc.
• However, if the physical constants are themselves the result of quantum processes then they could have different values in different universes. The many worlds interpretation (combined with the anthropic principle) can then explain the cosmological fine-tuning problem.

There's a nice article by Max Tegmark that you might enjoy reading (if you haven't already), about the different kinds of parallel universe. In fact, I might read it again myself.

Cosmo0 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion

A discussion that you were involved in was closed with the wrong closing decision. Please revisit the above link to review the article in question and your opinion given there. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I looked at your contributions and I believe that when you have reverted edits, you have done so appropriately. So, I have added rollback rights to your account. Please note that rollback should be used only for blatant vandalism and does not leave a useful edit summary. I hope you find it useful, but if not, just ask and I will remove it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of GOODS Survey

I have nominated GOODS Survey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "super galaxy"

Let's say you are correct, and the term "super galaxy" is not an established term, or it is a term that has changed meaning over time. Rather than delete the article, that information could be added to the page, increasing the amount of information available through wikipedia. Of course this places the burden on you, because now you have to provide sources to support your claim, that "Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today."

If you can support that claim, (it may be true, I don't know), then that information is added to the article. If the term "super galaxy" has no well defined meaning, as you say, then that information is added to the article.

So now, rather than the simple "lets delete something", we have an article that informs the curious reader that this phrase has been used in various ways, that the meaning seems to have changed over time, and that currently it is not clear what it means.

That is called knowledge, where rather than finding "no entry", somebody looking up "super galaxy" finds information, not a blank page.

Then there is the other issue, that "super galaxy" is currently being used as shorthand, to describe the C-5M Super Galaxy - the US Air Force's leading cargo aircraft.

Which I was aware of when I created the page. I don't know how to make one of those multiple meaning pages.

But by all means, I understand how easy it is to delete stuff. It takes effort to create and edit entries. Deleting is quick and easy.

But reality is decided by consensus, so I'm sure that the wikiality of the issue will win out. (insert laugh emoticon here, so everybody knows I am joking)

I've never watched a deletion discussion before. How long can you wait before you push the delete button? Is there a hurry? Is this an important issue? Where are the rules regarding such a pressing issue? Thanks. FX (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your technical question first:

• the deletion debate should take no more than 5 days, but it can be shorter if an early concensus is reached
• to disambiguate the meaning, you can use the template {{about|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}} at the top of the page to give 'This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.', or {{for|USE2|PAGE2}} to give simply 'For USE2, see PAGE2.' (see e.g. Edwin Hubble). You can also create a disambiguation page, but it's probably not worth it for just 2 articles.

Regarding the article itself, I don't agree that Super Galaxy is a term whose meaning has changed over time. In fact, it has only really had one meaning in the scientific literature (the one referred to in the papers you cite, which I admit I didn't know/had forgotten about) and, as far as I can see, it's just an obsolete term for the Supergalactic plane. Other than that, it's just people tacking the prefix 'super-' onto 'galaxy' to imply large, as you can do with any noun. And no - bad information is not better than no information. If people come to Wikipedia looking for Super Galaxy and find nothing they'll realize that there's no such term. Either that or they'll start a new article and the fun begins all over again!

In any case, the proper way to solve this now is through the debate. We've both made our arguments, so let's just wait out the result. Hopefully no hard feelings either way. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Debate?

What debate? I didn't know debates had a place in wikipedia. Notable, verifiable, NPOV, where does debate come in?

At the risk of spreading out the conversation, if a free online encyclopedia doesn't have an entry for a term used by astronomers, news reports, and published articles, why would you think that means the term doesn't exist?

There is no entry for Quail Bronchitis Virus. Do you really think that means the QB virus doesn't exist? That is just silly. Especially considering that virus is the centerpiece of some very important research. FX (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, debate. Since Wikipedia has no final arbiter of whether or not an article meets the conditions for inclusion, debate and discussion is how we decide if the article is appropriate or not. You used the word 'discussion', I use 'debate' - they're the same thing (if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion you'll find that the word 'debate' is used 10 times in secribing the AfD process, along with discussion and probably a few other synonyms).

As for your twisted characterization of my argument, of course I didn't say that if Wikipedia has no article on a subject then it doesn't exist. In fact, I said the exact opposite: that if a term doesn't exist (as Super Galaxy doesn't in the context described) then it shouldn't be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Cosmo0 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"If people come to Wikipedia looking for Super Galaxy and find nothing they'll realize that there's no such term."

That just isn't true. Based on my experience, if there is no entry, several things can happen.

1) Decide Wikipedia is not complete (yet). Nobody has made an entry. 2) Create entry. All kinds of things can happen after that. 3) Create entry. Discover Article was deleted. At which point a newcomer may recreate it. Big trouble ahead. Or, if one is wise, back away slowly, don't make eye contact. 4) Dismiss Wikipedia as credible source. 5) Request page be created. Sit back and make popcorn. 6) Go to another source. FX (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any of which would be preferable (well, except for 4) to looking for Super Galaxy, finding an article that is factually almost entirely inaccurate and going away with the idea that astronomers have identified a special class of called 'super galaxies', which is simply not true. And if you're the kind of person who dismisses a source of information because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions of what the answer should be then there's probably no hope for you anyway. Cosmo0 (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh Cosmo!

It seems, (and I could be wrong), you have the impression I actually care about the super galaxy. That it is important, that it matters a lot. Did you miss the deletion talk page, where I voted to delete? Based on the valid point the capitalization is wrong? I also think the term is vague, has multiple meanings, and would be best suited under a page of outdated or confusing astronomical terms.

I don't think, based on the guidelines for articles, that it deserves an entry. If wikipedia was to be printed, it would be a waste of ink. It IS used in several different ways, and the historical record shows the meaning has changed, and is unclear. It would be best as a redirect to some other page.

I'm not sure how or why I even got sucked into a debate over such a non-issue. There is a certain attraction however. I think I am understanding the motivations and goads that drive wikiwarriors to spend endless amounts of time and energy over talk pages now. To which I owe you credit, I think. Thanks.

I use wikipedia all the time. I often felt like a parasite, because even when I would find errors, or articles that I could add to, I never did. Let somebody else do it. Not my problem. After attempting to actually add some stuff, I also realized there is a steep learning curve for making a page look right. It is actually a lot of work. Much to learn, and you can't count on somebody else doing it. It take commitment.

I used to think vandals were the bane of wikipedia, but now I find there is a much more insidious element, one that defies definition, but seems to revolve around the human desire to be right. This brings us directly into conflict regarding a multitude of issues, some cultural, some regional, some endemic to social groups, some just free floating ineffable proxies, looking for an outlet.

It is a new experience to me. Novelty is a rare commodity, hence you have added some value to my InternetExperience of late. It's all good.FX (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• uhmm why was my last contribution unconstructive? The school cannot turn you down if you dont live in any of those towns, they can only turn you down if you have been expelled from a previous high school or have a record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwsnowboarder94 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 November 2008

I consider it unconstructive to add a comment about the school's admissions policy to a list of towns served, and the tone of your comment suggested criticism of the policy. In any case, the statement seems largely unnecessary since the same could be said of any private school. Perhaps I was too hasty in reverting completely - there could be a place in the article for a statement to the effect that admissions are not restricted to the towns listed. If you made the contribution in good faith then I apologize and I hope it doesn;t put you off contributing in future. Cosmo0 (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1