User talk:IworkforNASA

Welcome!

Hi, IworkforNASA, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing.

— Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --OrbitOne 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful or Not

If an edit is not NPOV, it is not helpful. If it is not factual, it is not helpful. Your edit was neighter NPOV or factual, so it is not helpful. --OrbitOne 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV to see the Wikipedia policy on how to correct bias: the key is not to push your own point of view, but instead to cite verifiable sources on all sides of any controversy. "POV-pushing", from whatever side of the argument, is generally not a good idea. -- Karada 01:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are maintaining a list of users who, in your opinion, are "perpetuating bias against the United States". I see you've just added me to that list, based on the comment above. Can you please tell me why? Please read WP:CIVIL. -- Karada 01:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that creating "attack pages" is simply not on. Since you are unwilling to reply here, I can only imagine that your goal is trolling. Please desist. -- Karada 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have now deleted my comment above, describing me as a "admitted troll". Since my comment above said nothing of the sort, I can only conclude that my view is correct. As a self-professed conservative, you will be aware that this website is the private property of the Wikipedia Foundation -- please respect the Foundation's property rights by obeying Wikipedia policy. -- Karada 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you fail to understand. This is not "your" user page. It's talk page that belongs to the Wikipedia Foundation, provided for other people to talk to you. You claim "a long history of NPOV edits" in your comment on my talk page, yet you only started editing today. Please stop trolling. -- Karada 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have edited the NASA article to state that NASA was founded in 1957. Since this contradicts the account at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Defining-chron.htm, I hope you have some evidence to support this. Otherwise, I can only conclude that this was a deliberate piece of misinformation. -- Karada 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have again changed the date to 1957. Cite, please? -- Karada 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop quiz time

One final thing: your user page bears a strong resemblance to that of User:ER MD. Quite remarkable that an MD and a NASA scientist have so many personal interests in common, as well as exactly the same goal in editing Wikipedia, and even the same user page layout. It's also interesting that User:ER MD's last edit (22:56, 18 February 2006) is just before your first edit (01:17, 19 February 2006). Are you by any possibility related to the Verizon customer User:71.107.80.90?

No, I'm not, never even used verison--IworkforNASA 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that your user page states that you "...work for NASA, as a scientist of solid state physicals", a phrase that is, as far as Google can tell, found nowhere else in the entire World Wide Web. Can you tell me where you got your degree in "solid state physicals"?-- Karada 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've never made any typos--IworkforNASA 02:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the comments above, rather than engaging in tit-for-tat editing. -- Karada 02:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop sticking a sockpup tag on my page--IworkforNASA 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, let me ask you a question: as a claimed NASA insider, can you support your assertion that NASA was founded in 1957, a year before the National Aeronautics and Space Act? -- Karada 02:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you expect me to provide you with proof? You don't think any internet source I could dredge up would be lacking credibility? It's true, just because you don't want to believe it, and can't find it on the internet doesn't make it otherweise--IworkforNASA 02:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. OK, let's try another tack: how do you determine the figure of a Fermi surface? -- Karada 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try visiting Fermi surface, wikipedia has a nice article on it, presumably how you planned to judge my answer--IworkforNASA 03:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Thanks for playing! OK, can you tell me what extra calculation becomes possible when a Lagrangian is time-invariant? -- Karada 03:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try to you, if I play your game, you accuse me of copying from Lagrangian, how about we refer to your vast studies of solid state physics and ask me a question that isn't stolen from a wikipedia article?--IworkforNASA 03:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want a clue? H(p,q). -- Karada 03:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bla, bla, bla, go play with your hamilton and leave me alone, k?--IworkforNASA 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonian. Get it right, please. Let's see if you can get the next one without a clue. In what context would you write <111>? -- Karada 03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, when I said hamilton, I meant it, one is an operator, theb other is a function, you wrote the damned function, when I said leave me alone, I meant that too--IworkforNASA 03:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt. Crystallography, of course! -- Karada 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone, of course--IworkforNASA 03:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one claiming he's a solid-state physicist. Still, thanks for playing. -- Karada

Don't you find it the least bit sad that the only edits you've mad in hours are to my talk page? can't you just leave me alone?--IworkforNASA 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've found our chat most entertaining. Good luck with the "solid state physicals". -- Karada 03:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Franken

In know an Al Frankin junkie like yourself might not get this upfront, but wikipedia has an NPOV policy, so you might want to look into that before you go around editing articles--IworkforNASA 03:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your poorly written, bizarre comment makes no sense, since all of my edits in the Al Franken article conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy. What are you talking about?Hal Raglan 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you put your rant under the Al Franken subheading of my talk page, I understandably had no clue what you were squealing about. Now that I've figured out that you were actually referring to the Media bias in the United States article, I still have no idea how you think I was violating wikipedia's NPOV policy. In case you're still confused by my edit, here's what I added to the discussion page of the Media bias article:

IworkforNASA jumped on my talk page and accused me of violating wikipedia's NPOV policy simply because I want a verifiable citation, whether to the FAIR website or anywhere else, that shows that FAIR is a "liberal organization." My whole point is if you're going to provide a link, make sure it goes somewhere that verifies what you've written. The page that was linked did NOT say anything of the kind. For the record, I believe that FAIR is inarguably liberal in their viewpoint, although they describe themselves somewhere on their website as "progressive" (and, yes, I agree that's the same thing). Hal Raglan 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Raglan 03:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry

I saw that your excellent edit there to remove Pro-Kerry hype was reverted. Keep your cool - there are many Liberals afoot here. One must tread gingerly. Also, some edits are best made anonymously - keep that in mind. 66.98.130.224 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:George W. Bush: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks, -- Rhobite 06:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 14:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy edits. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also, you may want to read up on what a sockpuppet actually is. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry before editing User:80.220.222.68 any further. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

using an anon ip to avoid a 3RR block isn't sockpuppetry?--IworkforNASA 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock puppet of whom though? You can't accuse someone of being a sock puppet just because they don't have a user name. You have to provide proof that it's actually an already registered user using that IP. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - um, hello, [1], either they're the same person, or they just like to finish each other's sentnces, or forgot they were still logged in, either way, I see a 3rd person being blocked for 3RR based on this, don't you?--IworkforNASA 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then that's something that you should have brought up earlier. Like I wrote above, you accused an anon IP of being a sock puppet, yet didn't say who the puppet master was and didn't provide any proof of sock puppetry. It seemed that you were accusing them of being a sock puppet just because they reverted your edits. The only conclusion I could come to was revenge vandalism on your part. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I couldn't point it out earlier because it was after i was already blocked for violating the 2RR on that article--IworkforNASA 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        What was your original basis for accusing the user of sock puppetry then? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tinfoil

While I appreciate your sentiments and your revert on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, be careful with the personal attacks in the edit summaries. They can get you into trouble. I don't want to lose you as an ally in keeping the nonsense POV-creep from articles on pseudoscience.

Cheers, --ScienceApologist 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already have a track record of rudeness on Wikipedia. Do not ever again use an edit summary like "(rvt - go find yourself a nice tinfoil hat somewhere)", please. Guinnog 15:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I count 4 reverts on Rationales to impeach George W. Bush over wording, and incorrect edit summaries. Arguments over wording are not vandalism. Please discuss on the talk page once your block has expired. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually I made 3, and the sockpuppet/sockmaster team made about 8 or 9 reverts--IworkforNASA 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} there's no shame in admitting you were fooled by a very convincing sockpuppeteer--IworkforNASA 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All parties have been blocked for disruptive editing and breaking the spirit and/or letter of 3RR. In your case, see [2], [3], [4], [5]. That's 4. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except, if you look at my first edit you'll see that I took portions from both versions and created a new version of the page with elements from both, the last 3 were reverts though, but not even to the version I wrote in the first 2 edits I made to the page, just to the last version before the ip user blanked it--IworkforNASA 16:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush, abortion, and Pro-Lick

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks.

And please keep in mind what is WP:VAN. POV edits are not vandalism. I agree that not all of Pro-Lick's edits are useful, but please try to stay cool when handling these matters. Thanks!--Andrew c 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA founding

I notice you've been changing the year of NASA's founding from 1958 to 1957, despite the citation of a NASA web page proclaiming the correct year to be 1958. Do you have a source to support your claim? — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a reference before changing the year of NASA's founding again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 11:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

What was biased about this edit? [6] The only things I did were remove redundant references, clarify some prose, and move some quotes to the appropriate section chronologically. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1957

knock it off--64.12.116.11 17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No seriously, NASA wasn't created in 1957, you can't cite yourself as a primary source, so stop changing it--64.12.116.11 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change poll

As per your request:

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Requested_move

Please add your input to this issue. Travb (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since, despite the numerous above warnings, you continue to to push POV and crackpottery, I have blocked you indefinitely. Raul654 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the use of checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppets. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did he misuse his alternate account? I dont think that the use of a sockpuppet is forbidden per se, rather the misuse of it. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous above warmings? Where? I see one warning that dates back to April 2006, and it's about personal attacks. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the contribs... at the very least, he's double-!voted on a series of AfD's. That's abusive, though it dates back awhile. Avoiding scrutiny is also potentially an issue here. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he double-voted, that's obviously a violation, but was a block already in order? Was he warned? --Childhood's End (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually warn people who use socks to double-vote or otherwise game the system in evident bad faith; we just block the sock indefinitely and the sockmaster for some period of time (I usually use 72 hours to 1 week). As to why the sockmaster here was blocked indefinitely, you'd have to take that up with Raul654. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]