User talk:PlanetCeres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your edits regarding 1ceres.com 2 Signing your posts 3 Deleting my Discussions??? = 4 Your edits to Definition of planet, Titius-Bode law and 2003 UB313 5 My edits

[edit] Your edits regarding 1ceres.com

Please do not spam Wikipedia articles with unverifiable contributions. The web site your are using as a citation (1ceres.com) does not qualify as a source for verifying information as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here is the relevant section:

"Self-published sources (online and paper)(See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources). Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party news organizations or publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on a professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Please, please do not disrupt articles by repeatedly adding material that will just have to be removed. There are many, many, many more positive ways to contribute! Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing your posts

One bit of (hopefully) helpful advice - you might wish to consider signing your posts on talk pages. You'll find that - given the enormous amount of vandalism that goes on here - people are far more willing to engage in discussion when they see a name attached to a comment. It's easy to do - just type "--~~~~" at the end of your post. (This applies only to talk pages, however - don't sign entries in the articles!) Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question below, the easiest way to sign a post is to use the tilde key ( ~ ) - usually found in the upper left corner of the keyboard. Type four of them like so ( ~~~~ ) and the system will insert your user name and time of edit when you save the text. Good luck. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting my Discussions??? =

I tried being civil and discuss the topics in the discussion area. But, the posts in the discussion are being deleted. So, If playing Guard Dog includes not allowing people to discuss opinions, I can't promise that I won't attempt to change the topic instead of attempting to discuss it.

Again, I have stated "Name one thing that is untrue within my posts." PlanetCeres^chat_Done

Learning..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetCeres (talk • contribs).

Where are your discussion posts being deleted? That's generally frowned upon, unless there's something offensive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is something offensive. PlanetCeres is trolling multiple articles and talk pages with his periodicity theory. Check his contributions and those of anonymous IP 71.215.54.11 for details. As far as I can see though, the only discussions of his that have been deleted are duplicate posts (not by myself, I only added this same note to his comments). Nick Mks 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

He's right that I was trying to include the Adjusted Bode Equation within relevant articles. After meeting continued resistance I posted the Equation within the discussion area of Titius-Bode_law. It was deleted and I saw that you had told me to start signing. (Is there an easy way to do that?) I thought you might have been the one doing it. That equation is the basis for all discussion. So, it's deletion is rather horrendous. -

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand. Nobody deleted anything from Talk:Titius-Bode law in the last 24 hours. Nick Mks 09:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The information is back and if you're reading this please tone down. I have no idea why the information disappeared and reappeared. But, I do know these things happen. And, I may have jumped the gun. So, I am not trying to edit material without some consensus. Thanks PlanetCeres^chat_Done 05:32, 18 August 2006

[edit] Your edits to Definition of planet, Titius-Bode law and 2003 UB313

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Nick Mks 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Nick Mks 09:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to 2003 UB313, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nick Mks 10:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I stopped prior to your posting. Sorry, I didn't delete the material. Was and am scared that doing so would get me blocked. I haven't posted since before your post before this one. Sorry. Discussion is good. Will keep trying discussion and try not to annoy anyone. PlanetCeres 05:47 18 August 2006

These messages are because you have totally messed up articles three times in the process of reinserting your claims, one of them after the first warning. If from now on, until consensus has been reached, you only touch talk pages, there should be no problem. Of course you are also welcome to edit articles, given the edits are productive. Nick Mks 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good for me.PlanetCeres

[edit] My edits

I'll put them on hold. Expecting clarification regarding deletion of discussions regarding including materials within topics. As, material seems to be "too new" for some.

If you really want to debate your contribution in a decent way, you can propose it on one talk page, as you correctly did here (I did move it to the appropriate section and corrected the layout). However, starting a debate about this on every even remotely related talk page, and especially inserting controversial text into articles multiple times, is not considered as good conduct. For now, you'll just have to wait until more people give their opinion about your proposal at the above location, but I'm afraid most turned it down already last night. Nick Mks 09:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate Top listing for it should be Titius-Bode_law. But, I really don't get the what you can and can't discuss in the discussion area. It's not meant for debate? Could you please tell me in simple language what you mean? Take the Titius-Bode law. There are other derivatives out there (That Suck.); but, it is part of the ongoing history of the subject. Published material, such as what is at 1ceres.com that has achieved popularity over a very long period of time for specific subjects (Planetary definition / Planetary Periodicity / 1Ceres as a planet). would seem adequate. The information has been popular and available for debate for years. Isn't something like that good enough? etc. What drives me is the mystical nature of the planets lining up for a reason. This peaks the curiosity. This drives imagination. This establishes wonder. And, with a simple calculator and an astronomy book, can be proven true. People will enjoy the topics more. So, it is important to me. But, even though I won't give up on wanting people to have joy, I don't know how to apply the information properly. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetCeres (talk • contribs).

Two things: (i) talk pages are for discussions on article content only, not for philisophical discussions about the article's subject; (ii) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it only contains things already established by authoritative references. Things that you yourself or a website 'prove' by the use of a simple calculator and an astronomy book, is original research, and not fit for inclusion. The duration of existence and popularity of a source is not a measure for its reliability. Otherwise we could include everything stated here as truth. So if you want to include your theory, you'll have to find a scientific source (university website, paper in Science,...) to support it. Nick Mks 09:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Content versus subject? I assume the 'philosophical' is added because you disagree. What should and shouldn't be included within a topic is what I would assume to be content. And, subject means concepts of whether something is true or not?

I recognize that the adjusted Bode has been published via the internet since 2002 at least. And, that 1ceres.com is the established authority on said subject. I also recognize that a lay individual wishing to be included within science journals has a snowball's chance in hell. So, unless an accepted journalist played devil's advocate, published findings by a lay will be ignored by people that just really don't care. And, I believe that there really is no opposing position because the information is a statement of observable fact rather than a hypothesis. But, I know this probably means nothing. Personally, debated in college. I understand that the question is of legitimate representation. But, truth is important also.PlanetCeres

Like I mentioned on your anon talk page User talk:71.215.54.11, Wikipedia isn't as concerned about truth as it is about verifiability. Original Research claims do not belong on wikipedia. I understand your frustration in trying to get published by a scientific journal, but it's a large hurdle for most scientists. McKay 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In your content on your website, you mention how you show 2 unknowns between the pluto-charon planet system, and 2003 UB₃₁₃. You should probably look at other plutons, to see how they fit (See the objects at Category:IAU planet debate) into your adjusted bodes law. McKay 04:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)