Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 28 October 2011

2009–2010 archive, in most cases things I did in my first two years on WP that pissed people off because I was trying to do the right thing (and, in a couple of cases, probably wasn't)

Wigner

Wigner's "consciousness-cause-collapse" was never that popular and not that much has been published on it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that the original Copenhagen interpretation is probably closer to Wigner's view than the present interpretation that many call "Copenhagen," which denies any role of the conscious act of measurement. So it's odd (and perhaps historically confusing) that on two separate articles we would say that (1) Few people accept Wigner's view yet (2) Copenhagen is the most popular interpretation. I thought it was best simply not to make such claims, especially since the sources are 15-20 years old. (Really, opinions in QM haven't changed since the early '90s?) -Jordgette (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinions in this field do not change that rapidly. Copenhagen is, and always was, very vague about collapse. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey There

I am very frustrated with the resistance I am encountering on the 7 World Trade Center page. Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but that paragraph is, actually, full of inacurracies. I am passionate about the subject, but am not doing personal attacks or anything like that and I am promoting things that I believe to be in line with wikipedia's policies - so why is no one even checking what I pointed out?Smitty121981 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

I understand. In my experience, the more passionate an editor feels about a topic, the less likely they are to be a patient and sober collaborator on that article. It's all the worse when they show up on a Featured Article that a years-long history of controversy (check the archives) and demand a bunch of changes with a "prove me wrong" approach. Just because you raise some points about the sources, we aren't all going to jump to do an hour's work on your request, particularly at this point with the edit warring -- never a good idea. If I were you, I'd take some time off, and when you come back, tackle one specific detail at a time, starting with the most innocuous ones. -Jordgette (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you for understanding. You will find that despite my enthusiasm I am both patient and sober in my actions. I am new to wikipedia and did not know about edit-warring... I was simply reacting to all of you ganging up on me in the only way I knew how (since I am new). Did you even read my revision to the 7 World Trade Center page? I still think it stands as valid and necessary. I feel that as a community you all failed to greet me in the way that I now know wikipedia recommends . Other users have threatened to ban me (without proper cause) and three users including yourself have already falsely insinuated that I am only here to inject bias! I have made no personal attacks myself, I'd really like it if I didn't receive them either. Most of all, it's very annoying to be told to gather a consensus on the discussion page before editing, when so far NO ONE has been interested in actually reaching that consensus. I have received no less that 8 replies from 4 users on the discussion, and NOT ONE actually addresses the content, old or new.

Can you tell me, when a sentence is wrong and it needs to be changed, what is the best way to state this to others? Right now I am saying that the articles says "blah blah blah" but blah blah blah is not in the source. That seems to me like a good way to present the problem but this to you is a "prove me wrong" approach. How exactly should I approach this differently? Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Well first of all, I avoid working on topics that I feel very strongly about and am emotionally invested in. We all go through that early in our WP editing careers, and it just never works out. I looked at your contribs and it looks like you've worked almost exclusively on this article. Surely there are other topics you're interested in that aren't so controversial and closely guarded.

If you must work on this article, like I've said several times, suggest changes one issue at a time. Quote the sentence, and then show very specifically what the source says or doesn't say. If you want to make two changes to one sentence, handle each change separately. Wait a few days and then proceed to the next one. Don't ask people to prove you wrong; you're the one making the positive assertions, so you need to demonstrate your position to other editors, in a sober and deliberate manner. Even if you're 100% right, the more impatient and demanding you are, the more resistance you'll meet. There's no rush with any of this. The world won't end if there are inaccuracies in this article tomorrow.

Regarding bias, I'm afraid you showed it with that edit that was quoted. To insert "allegedly" and say "It is sometimes asserted...", both in contradiction to reliable sources, reveals that you were coming from a particular angle. Unfortunately that edit will always be there, so in terms of neutrality you dug a hole for yourself right off the bat. When you combine that, the article's history of being a lightning rod for crusading Truthers (who go heavy on the all caps in my experience), and its Featured Article status...I hope you can understand why people are reacting the way they are. -Jordgette (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well honestly I was expecting controversy, but I was not expecting so many personal attacks! It's not my fault that I actually know a lot about this subject and I found errors. Everyone is attacking me for that first stupid edit I made. I am sorry but saying "It is sometimes asserted..." does NOT contradict a reliable source. It is a true statement. This IS sometimes asserted. I had no idea that the wiki community was so resistant to any implication that the 9/11 story was anything but unanimously agreed upon by 100% of the public and 100% of professionals in the area, but the fact is that there are a lot of people who question things. Just because I acknowledged their existence does NOT mean that I agree with anything they say and it does NOT in any way imply that I was editing with bias. I am not arguing to keep this edit either but everyone keeps hounding me about it! And you know what? All caps are simply faster to type than bold or italic. Sorry.Smitty121981 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Calling someone out for possible neutrality issues, based on their edit history, is not a personal attack. And, just because a small percentage of people (or even of reliable sources) take a fringe position does not mean that an article must acknowledge that throughout. -Jordgette (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" IS a personal attack and I feel this is how I am being treated. The funny thing is that I never stated any affiliation, but it is now up to 4 users who have basically said that I am a "Truther" or "conspiracy theorist" and therefore I have nothing valuable to add to the conversation. All because I used the word "allegedly". And like I said, I agreed with the decision to remove my very first rookie wikipedia edit... but for the record, I made the edit because I truly believed it made the article more neutral. Smitty121981 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Double slit experiment

I have answered --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Building 7 article

Another attempt I made at trimming the article was reverted. I am wondering if you supported the change I made since you did not raise any objections after I made the edit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)