User talk:KingSupernova

Hello, KingSupernova, 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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! (And thanks for the answer on Talk:Halo (megastructure), years late or no :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KingSupernova! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeno94 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KingSupernova. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Fast fission— 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. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:HyperLogLog". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Winged Blades ^Godric 15:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this reply to your post on the escape velocity talk page but it got reverted immediately by someone using Twinkle: ":In physics, the correct term is "escape speed" and this term is undoubtedly fairly common. QED. By the way, it may be the standard term in a physics classroom, or at least any physics classroom where velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar. No one would be confused by "escape speed" as those who don't know the difference between speed and velocity will simply interpret "speed" as a synonym for "velocity", as indeed it is outside of physics. To those who prefer "escape velocity": would you also prefer to call mass "weight"? Most people think kilograms are a measure of weight, and have no idea what mass is, so it would seem to make about as much sense. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)" I've since posted a reply to the person who disagreed you (who is seemingly the person who reverted my post agreeing with you), making essentially the same point. Am waiting to see if he or she replies or reverts my post. I must say it seems strange to revert a good faith talk page post by someone disagreeing with you. The justification was posted on my user page, but it doesn't seem to hold water. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the supposed justification for the reversion of my post agreeing with your post:

""Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Escape velocity for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)" Arctic Gazelle (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)" Arctic Gazelle (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

would you please start a new topic with your concerns, the old ones are stale. You have legit concerns but there is also real research on epigenetics which is interesting and shouldn't be called pseudoscientific, since a lot is cutting edge real scientific. Andre🚐 04:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. KingSupernova (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you remove this comment about an individual, per WP:BLP, which is not an optional policy. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What comment? You didn't link to any comment, and I haven't commented on any living person biographies recently. KingSupernova (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to repeat the potential libel. You called a living person a crackpot. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to repeat a comment in order to link to it. You can link to somewhere else on Wikipedia by surrounding the link in double square brackets, or clicking the icon in the editor that looks like two chain links. KingSupernova (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No shit! Anyway, now it's clear what is referred to are you going to remove it? Bon courage (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment? Why would I remove it? The comment was about why finding a single scientist who holds some belief you want to push is not relevant to Wikipedia; there exists a scientist somewhere in the world who holds pretty much any belief. If you want to refute my comment, you have to actually explain why what I said is incorrect, not just insist I remove it. KingSupernova (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUMB. Bon courage (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Manifold_(prediction_market)#Not_yet_notable,_potentially_biased_editing

FYI I am not the original author of this page but it seems to have crossed the notability threshold. Looking forward to the discussion Ma7ged (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]