User talk:Alohascope

December 2015
Hello, I'm Allthefoxes. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cosmology has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. --allthefoxes (Talk) 05:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Cosmology. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Make suggestions


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Make suggestions, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the page. While it wasn't really vandalism, it had no place in article space; it only consisted of complaints about the Wikipedia policies. (And your suggestion will not be implemented, because it flies in the face of one of the core policies: no original research.) As an example, I have reviewed your contribution to the Nebular hypothesis article. The addition was misguided from the beginning to the end: Waterfall nebula is so named because it visually resembles a waterfall, not because it consists of water; and algae cannot convert water into silica - they need to get silicon compounds from the environment. Presence of fossil sea creatures at mountains does not indicate that the sea level used to be that high - they indicate that the land used to be a part of a sea bed that has risen through plate tectonics. (As a demonstration of the mechanism, try pushing two sheets of paper against each other; either one will slide under another, or - if you hold both down - they will become wrinkled.) To sum up, your contribution consisted of your personal interpretation (or rather misinterpretation) of tangentially related sources, combined with a disbelief that the accepted models could account for that amount of water in the solar system (without explaining why they couldn't, and without suggesting an alternative); a textbook example of original research/synthesis. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not only wrong you don't read what is written. Organisms DO synthesize silica, and that would have been cited. I did NOT say water on earth was above the height of Mount Everest, I said Mount Everest reveals all land on earth at one time was beneath water, which you did agree with but first cited me in error. The Waterfall Nebula DOES show water being formed through the compression of gasses by the shock wave from the exploded star, with another red pulsing star at bottom providing the gravity well into which the water pours and collects, the water then propelled into space by the plasma pulses. Your link to 'contact Wikipedia' does not connect with anyone who would be interested in how Wikipedia can be improved through suggestions .. and with Wikipedia 'editors' working in the normal fashion of discussion board moderators who LOVE to hit the BAN button, Wikipedia can only shrivel into a useless internet has-been instead of reaching its potential as a highly valued promoter of knowledge. However, I'm sure Wikipedia's founders have left goals and Wikipedia behind, content with the $$$$ they have earned, laughing at everyone as they 'duke it out' in Wikipedia's name. You won't get my $$$$ though, because the website is not valuable enough. P.S. Found in your own website when I searched 'how to make suggestions':  "You may create the page "Make suggestions", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered."
 * I repeat: presence of marine fossils at mountains does not indicate that the entire surface of Earth was covered by water (see Orogeny). You claim that Waterfall Nebula contains planets consisting of water being ejected from the system; the linked website makes no such claim. You claim that organisms can synthesize silica from water; your supposed reference does not support the claim, either. (It only says that they contain silica. Thermonuclear reactions [ nuclear fusion ] that transform lighter elements into heavier ones occur in stars, not in planets or living organisms.) The other link about phase transitions is completely irrelevant - it does not mention silicon or transformation of elements at all. And your conclusion that there is too much water in the solar system for the accepted theories to account to does not follow from anything you said, and is completely unsourced. For the record, I am not an official representative of Wikipedia; I am just one of more than a thousand a volunteer administrators, who was elected by the community. You may try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation, but they will tell you the same thing: that original research and synthesis is outside the scope of Wikipedia is one of the core policies, and for that reason your request cannot be granted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense written by Allthefoxes and Scoobydunk .. absolute garbage .. that's what Wikipedia has become.Alohascope (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Response Team
Please read WP:Contact_us_-_Readers to learn how to contact Wikipedia. JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Mike .. thanks for pointing me to the Wikipedia Foundation. I have already sent them two emails regarding my ideas for clearly identified links to 'alternative' theories, ideas, histories, etc. I have also suggested promoting what you call original research/synthesis in articles. In this way the boundaries of knowledge can be expanded past consensus antiquity. I clearly said Wikipedia in its present state was undeserving of my financial support. Regarding my links, I have limited access to the internet, and in my science inclusion used the quickest links I could find, having lost much better sources when a cosmology website banned me despite careful inclusion of excellent references. However, your speed of reading should slow down, as I did not say planets were expelled into space by the plasma pulses, I said balls of water were expelled into space, those balls becoming planets in time through various processes including phase transition which is the very simple conversion of energy to matter or matter to energy, as when wood burns in a fire. Biological processes also become involved. Solitary planets have been found to be abundant in space. Best Wishes for you, Mike, and Wikipedia, which can be changed to become a wonderful tool for expanding knowledge.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Cosmology with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User:Isambard_Kingdom. --allthefoxes (Talk) 00:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Listen please .. you say Wikipedia wants neutral articles, yet someone writes a totally untrue blurb about the bible that lacks ANY substantiation, and you cite ME as a vandal. Wikipedia has slid down the slope into the gruesome pit. Wikipedia will NOT get $$1$$ from me until major changes are made. Alohascope (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC) But all this crap of trying to honestly use Wikipedia has revealed to me that there are far better sources for information anyway .. so it was worth the aggravation.


 * We don't want 'neutral' articles, we want articles that conform to our neutral point of view policy, articles that are sourced in accordance with WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. This isn't a website for original thought, it's an encyclopedia. It's also a mainstream encylopedia. Doug Weller  talk 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)