| Revision as of 01:25, 7 February 2008 editTimidGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,259 edits →Talk page style: I may have a solution← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:34, 7 February 2008 edit undoLittleolive oil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,079 edits →Thanks: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. I may have a solution you will like. Need to think about it a bit. More tomorrow. ] (]) 01:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. I may have a solution you will like. Need to think about it a bit. More tomorrow. ] (]) 01:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Really thank you for these comments . I do not in any way feel you are denigrating my spiritual beliefs. I expect we are all trying to be neutral, and I haven't seen you make remarks that indicate you are making comments about my belief system. The editing of the article is a neutral issue for me. I can't allow my belief system, whatever that may be to get tied up with the article for personal reasons but also for editing reasons.I think your comments on the article have helped us all look the thing from multiple perspectives and that can only be good for the article.(] (]) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 15:34, 7 February 2008
Dispute resolution
Hi, Really. You suggested that I threatened dispute resolution. Note that it wasn't a threat. Per WP:CONSENSUS we should agree on changes. If we can't agree, then there are mechanisms for mediating our differences. TimidGuy (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi TG I agree wwith you completely. However, looks like we are now working towards a consensus, or at least heading that way - which is good for the artcle. Look forward to working with you, Peace my friend Really2012back (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Really. And peace to you. TimidGuy (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Really, I appreciate the apology, and the lovely little picture.(olive (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
Hi Really2012...thanks!!!!
Hi Really,
At WTBDWK, you made a comment "I'm quite serious about this - if I get one more first year undergraduate student throwing up a question about quantum physics and consciousness again, based on the fact that they think a lot of scientists support this nonsense, I'll scream. Might be fine for a theology or philosophy lecture but there are limits.
Wow did you say a mouthful, and I've been meaning to stop by here to say hi since you posted it! I share your concerns, I have dealt with the same frustrations as you describe (both personally and professioanlly) for quite some time.
I'm commenting here rather than at the talk page...because the one thing there that seems least welcome in these topics is a "middle" point of view, it gets criticized and flamed from both extremes and just makes things worse.
Teaching physics in California is particularly difficult in this area (in this context, a friend once reminded me that California is the largest exporter of fruits and nuts in the world) so in "Quantum Enigma", Rosenblum and Kuttner speak from that perspective, share your experience and your frustrations, and propose a solution.
- "Since quantum theory works perfectly, for all practical purposes physicists can ignore -- even deny -- any mystery. But by doing so, we leave the aspects of the theory that most intrigue nonphysicists to misleading presentations such as, to take just a single example, the movie What the Bleep? The real quantum enigma is not only more fascinating than the "philosophies" such treatments espouse, it is more bizarre. Understanding the true mystery requires a bit more mental effort, but it's well within the grasp of an intelligent nontechnical person." Here are more snippets.
Thought you might want to check out the book and see if it helps bring some peace, and thanks for your contributions to the discussion, and (especially) for joining in support of the mediation.... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk page style
Hi, Really. Maybe follow this guideline regarding avoiding excessive markup on the Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC) And while I'm giving advice . . . You might want to consider getting involved in other articles so that you don't appear to be a single purpose account. This will be especially helpful to you if we go to mediation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that TG - but I am already involved in other articles - but kind advice. Addition: Oddly we seem to be involved in many of the same articles.
Sorry TG - the excessive markup was not excessive. It appeared that you and Olive were not seeing the bits I was referring to. it was not shouting my friend but highlighting
I'm sorry to be such a pest on your talk page. It would be great if you could point to the specific policy where you got this. Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi TG. Your never a pest my friend. You can find both here - my apologies for not providing the link orginally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Business_and_Commerce
Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. I may have a solution you will like. Need to think about it a bit. More tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Really thank you for these comments . I do not in any way feel you are denigrating my spiritual beliefs. I expect we are all trying to be neutral, and I haven't seen you make remarks that indicate you are making comments about my belief system. The editing of the article is a neutral issue for me. I can't allow my belief system, whatever that may be to get tied up with the article for personal reasons but also for editing reasons.I think your comments on the article have helped us all look the thing from multiple perspectives and that can only be good for the article.(olive (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC))