User talk:71.215.54.11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Periodicity

Hello anon user. While I admire your dedication to truth, there are several rules involved, particularly WP:NOT. I would imagine that 1 Ceres.com is your page. I'm not sure how I feel about your opinions from a mathematical sense, it doesn't seem right, but it might be true. There does appear to be some credence to your claims. Alas, Wikipedia isn't as interested in Truth, as it is in Verifiability. I'm not here to say that the claim is false, but I'm saying that it isn't verifiable. When 1ceres.com gets reviewed by a major journal or website, it will go in, even if unproven, because Verifiabiliy is more important to Wikipedia than truth.

On a seperate note, reverting a revert, especially without reasoning, is considered bad form. McKay 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your claim isn't true, timley, or relevant, or old. It could very well be all of those things (and "timely and relevant" are definitely true). I'm saying that your content isn't verifiable, which is an entierly different matter. What you're doing is techinically Wikipedia:Original research. This is not one of wikipedia's purposes. I have a couple of awesome ideas, answers to questions that Steven Hawking has been asking, but while I am personally sure that they are true, they don't belong on Wikipedia, because it's original research. Some of these things have been posted on my website for a while too, but that doesn't mean that they are verifiable. In order to be verifiable, it needs to be accepted by the scientific community (in the form of public announcements or scientific journals), or by (much less stringent, and somewhat biased or liberal at times) media. I apologize, but because of lack of Wikipedia:Notability your claims will likely have to be reverted. McKay 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
first, note that There's a section under "periodicity" at the bottom of my talk page.
Second, I agree that your page has been around for a while. I also think that your claim has some serious merit. I think that you might be hailed as one who put some awesome predictions of the presence of 2003 UB313. Way cool.
Third, because of Wikipedia Policy, particularly that of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Original Research, your content is against the rules of Wikipedia :(. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia thinks your claims are wrong, just that they aren't notable. McKay 04:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and you might want to run your numbers on the locations of 90377 Sedna and 50000 Quaoar, and the other potential planets listed at Category:IAU planet debate to see if any of them match your "Unknown" numbers. McKay 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)