User talk:68.146.204.233

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

I noticed your contributions to List of backward messages, and thought I'd welcome you to Wikipedia. My name is Dan, a.k.a. TheJabberwock. Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username by clicking sign up. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. As a registered users, you gain the use of an appropriate username of your choice, a personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you, the ability to start new pages, and much more. Also, your IP address, 68.146.204.233, will no longer be visible to other users.
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.
  • If you are interested in music, you might want to check out Portal:Music.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

 TheJabberwock 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research added to backmasking

The point you make is a good one. However, the information you added is a violation of WP:OR. Do you have a good source for this excellent info, so we can keep it in the article? Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Original research added to backmasking

This is 68.146.204.233 with an account. I don't have a source for the info - I just noticed and posted it. So I guess it has to be removed - but can the Homestar comment stay?

I don't think so. Wikipedia:External links states that "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States", and the image at the site you linked to seems to be copyvio.
Wikipedia's original research policy is one of the most frustrating things to work with here. Unfortunately, I think it's necessary as a guideline, though of course it can be taken too far. I wish I had some kind of authoritative work on backmasking, so I could include all these excellent points refuting the existence of subliminal messages. But until I find one, we'll have to leave them out. Anyway, thanks for your time, and I'll see you around. Λυδαcιτγ 04:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid Impact Effects

You recently posted to the 99942 Apophis and 2004 VD17 articles, giving distances from an impact point at which "houses would be destroyed". I assume you derived these numbers from an approximate analysis, such as www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/. However, in this context, such an analysis is almost meaningless, so I have removed the relevant sentences.

Both Apophis and VD17 have a very low probability of impact, and if one were to hit, it could hit anywhere in a very large region of the Earth's surface. If it landed on ocean, then there would not be houses anywhere nearby anyway. We don't know the angle of entry, which is a pretty strong factor in property destruction, and the details of the effects of a distant impact on a building depend very strongly on the construction. I may seem overly pendantic, but I spend quite a bit of time dealing with this. Michaelbusch

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.146.204.233.html"