User talk:X900BattleGrape

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, X900BattleGrape, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ScienceApologist 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage creation

Did I accidently put this out on Wiki versus under my account (i.e. private area)?

You almost got it right! Try: User:X900BattleGrape/Treehouse. Let me know if you have questions! --F a ng Aili ^talk 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X900BattleGrape 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HopeLab CMYK small.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HopeLab CMYK small.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HopeLab LogoV.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HopeLab LogoV.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects

Hi, X900BattleGrape. Cross-namespace redirects are generally not allowed. So, for example, redirecting your user page to an article is to be avoided. Hope you understand. ScienceApologist 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Nope, I don't understand. What is a cross-namespace redirect and where did I do this? (X900BattleGrape 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is what a cross-namespace redirect is. When you moved the article you were working on from user space into main space, a redirect from your user page was automatically made. In the future, if you want to work on articles in your userspace, it's best to follow this format:

Make what is known as a "sandbox" by starting a page User:X900BattleGrape/Article I'm writing. Just substitute the title of the article for Article I'm writing.
When you are ready to publish your article, instead of using the "move" feature, just copy the text of the article from its edit window wholesale.
Insert the text into the new article page entitled Article I'm writing. Again, obviously, substitute the title of the article for Article I'm writing.
Delete your sandbox by posting {{Db-author}} on the top of User:X900BattleGrape/Article I'm writing. An admin will come around within a day or two and get rid of it for you.

I hope that makes sense. It's just to avoid these weird situations where a user page redirects to an article page.

Looks like you did good work. Hope you enjoy editing!

ScienceApologist 20:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can practice doing #4 Right now. Try placing the db-author tag at User:X900BattleGrape/Treehouse. ScienceApologist 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse and cross-name

Yeah that all makes sense. If there was a copy of an article in my useraccount it wasn't a live article (I believe), though I probably never did slate it for destruction hence you picked up on it. It was probably one of the two articles I've authored from scratch (and thus began in my user account) were HopeLab and Re-Mission, and I did a good job on the articles I think, but I did find the sandbox / user area confusing in terms of a) initiating an article and b) pushing the finished product out as a stand-alone wiki article. Hey, at least I got the main pillars of Wiki right, if not a couple details.

The /Treehouse bit is essentially what I created as a place to write a new article (i.e. your example of using 'article i'm writting' as a title) in the future, so I'll probably leave it be. I had made a couple minor edits to the Velikovsky article and your message to me made me wonder if I'd somehow linked that article to my user page, though I can't see how that would happen lol.

I'll definitely have more to contribute to the Velikovsky article as we go along. I've read the criticism, the original works, and a number of data-sets referenced as they relate to his work. Should be fun :) (X900BattleGrape 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, you certainly can keep user subpages at your own discretion. I will note, though, it was also a cross-namespace redirect before I removed it.

As you can see from the talkpage, I monitor Immanuel Velikovsky fairly carefully. I'll give you a few pointers in how to approach this controversial subject:

Neutral point-of-view: All Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are to be written from a neutral point-of-view.
Undue weight: One thing that often gets misunderstood about writing from a neutral point-of-view is that minority opinions should not be weighted the same way as majority opinions. In the case of Velikovsky, the critics are generally considered the "majority" opinions as they represent the academic communities that Velikovsky was challenging. What's more, there are actually a lot of minority opinions on Velikovsky that purport to say one thing or another about his various ideas. These need to be characterized appropriately as minority opinions or we will end up with an article that doesn't conform to Wikipedia policies. In other words, we have to be very careful to describe the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky as outside the mainstream and to make sure that the critiques of mainstream ideas are not unduly weighted.
Notability: Any new text that is included at Wikipedia needs to be notable. Just because some guy or gal had some idea about something from Immanuel Velikovsky doesn't mean that their idea is notable.
Reliable sources: There are a lot of unreliable sources floating around on the internet and there are dozens if not hundreds of unreliable books about Immanuel Velikovsky. Careful evaluation of sources is vital in order to write a good article.
Verifiability: Any statements included in an article need to be verifiable.
Fringe theories: Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas range from marginal to pseudoscience. This content guideline explains the issues that surround describing such ideas. It needs to be followed carefully.

I look forward to working with you! If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.

ScienceApologist 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good catch, but yeah I think it was a non-live version of an article I wrote and published then didn't know how to get rid of in my user area. Good it's gone though. The workspace area is for me to putz around with Wiki code so when I need to use it I don't struggle then and waste time; I struggle and waste time when I planned to lol.

Point 1. I actually work for HopeLab and did pretty good for NPOV there, so I think I'll be fine on this point.

Point 2. I get that, though it's precisely why I added to the V:Talk about the Einstein comment. Additionally, I would make a sub-distinction about both majority and minority opinion as related to quality of thought and track-record. In other words, Sagan is fantastic, but he's got less weight in my mind than many lesser known scientists and astronomers. Sagan has his place, but I don't think it's as simple as majority / minority. Hope that makes sense. Besides, I am more interested in where science has shown V to be correct, rather than having a lame debate about the over-arching hypothesis that lead to some of his predictions that panned out. The over-aching hypothesis may never be proven, or dis-proven, hence the whole controversy eh?

Point 3. I recall the "McDonals by your house" versus "McDonalds that 10 people were killed at in your town" pretty well. Got it.

Point 4. Your V comment on sources aside, which can only be true if you include blogs, webpages, and such (and thus is true for any person of note with regard to praise or criticism), I'm fairly good at sussing out the reliable.

Point 5. Of course. It's not hard to steer clear of non-verifiable information / quotes / etc.

Point 6. As I alluded to, it depends on whether we're looking at the big picture V painted, or some of the smaller ideas which he felt would be the case based on his big picture idea. I'm not sure the term psuedoscience really applies in V case, but that's your POV if you think so I guess.

Likewise :) (X900BattleGrape 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A few comments:

I'm not sure I understand your comments regarding Carl Sagan. The reason Sagan is so useful for this encyclopedia is that he acted as an ambassador for mainstream science to the general public. That means his ideas are easier to understand than a lot of the technical works on similar subjects even though he may have some issues with superficial "gloss" due to Sagan being very aware of his audience.

That's exactly my point. While he has more weight when using a strictly majority / minority point of view, there are other factors which should be considered when trying to place weight on a given source. In other words, it's not so black and white. Sagan has majority weight, absolutely, but that weight may increase or decrease depending on what one is using Sagan to support.(X900BattleGrape 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

About Velikovsky being shown to be "correct": I'm not aware of any reliable sources from mainstream academia which report this to be the case. I should have mentioned that there is a guideline on Wikipedia about no original research. If you can point to a place where a scientist said, "Hey, Velikovsky was right," then we can certainly look at that. However, I've studied this issue in some depth and have yet to see this coming from the mainstream.

This is where the rubber meets the road, and where (for whatever reason) it feels like those with an anti-V POV tend to focus exclusively on V main theory (i.e. Jupiter expelling mass which becomes Venus) and thus stating "he was wrong about everything". Sadly, his main theory can likely never be proven anymore than Sagan's RGE can, and so unless we wish to paint Sagan with the same brush V has been painted with, it behooves us to investigate the works of the person as a whole. I think not doing this serves no purpose at all. For example, there are many things which V predicted as evidence for his theory that did turn out to be true. While this doesn't make his main theory true, it certainly tends to elevate his stature from one of a crack psuedoscientist who was fairly discredited to...something else. What that is really isn't the point and would be up to the reader to determine. We wouldn't commit a baseball player to the scrapbin of history for batting .600 but never scoring a home run. This parallel fits V I believe. (X900BattleGrape 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As an astronomer, I am aware that most of Velikovsky's ideas concerning the solar system are verifiably incorrect. There are a few cases where certain speculations that Velikovsky made turned out to be superficially right for what might be described as the wrong reasons. For example, he had made some comments about the possibility of radio signals from planets based on his electricity-in-space beliefs. While radio signals have been observed from planets, it is not due to celestial electricity as Velikovsky would have it, for example.

I'm not sure the source of Jupiter's radio waves has been proven to be celestial, internal, or other at this point. In the case of the Jupiter radio waves what's more important is that he predicted there would be radio waves from Jupiter and the majority came down on him like a ton of bricks stating there would be no radio waves, so this is a different case that I agree isn't clear in terms of V getting it exactly right. It does illuminate other things though. But there are predictions which are cut and dry, and I think noting a couple would be a good idea.

I don't know that in a few cases that spring to mind there will be a particular scientist which verifies the prediction, but rather a scientific mission (i.e. Voyager, etc.) which verify. I'll do my level-best to ensure that the initial findings have not been invalidated by subsequent measurements by either Earth or space-born instruments. I'm out of time for a bit here, but I doubt that the rules would lump technologically gathered data in with original research ;)(X900BattleGrape 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ScienceApologist 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments: much of what you wrote in response to my comments is original research and therefore will not see the light of day in the article on Immanuel Velikovsky. When you want to begin discussion on Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky I encourage you to follow these guidelines:

Avoid offering a general critique the article: propose additions and deletions of prose clearly and make sure they are reliably sourced.
Do make sure every proposal you make is backed up by verifiable sources that explicitly deal with Velikovsky if the subject is Velikovsky or are based on the mainstream peer-reviewed literature if the subject is mainstream science.
Avoid making synthesis that cannot be verified. In other words, if the mainstream papers which report observations of Jupiter's radio waves do not mention Velikovsky, there is no way we can connect Velikovsky with the mainstream reseasrch without conducting original research. If you feel that the ideas should be connected, you need to find a reliable source that makes the connection.

I hope this makes sense.

ScienceApologist 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Re-mission_package.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Re-mission_package.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---Rockfang, please look at the notes on the image page. It was uploaded by myself, an employee of HopeLab to whom the image belongs, and at their requent. It says it all over the page please check it yourself. (X900BattleGrape

Non-free rationale for File:Re-mission.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Re-mission.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:HopeLab CMYK small.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HopeLab CMYK small.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]