Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Closedmouth (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 30 September 2009 (→WP:AN3: decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The trials of Everett

This might bring you some relief from some of the more sterile and unrewarding work here:

• Stefano Osnaghi, Fabio Freitas, Olival Freire Jr, The Origin of the Everettian Heresy, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40(2009)97–123. A study of the painful three-way relationship between Hugh Everett, John A Wheeler and Niels Bohr and how this affected the early development of the many-worlds theory.

--Michael C. Price 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that the MWI has become a lot more mainstream that I ever thought possible. Perhaps the internet has made us all smarter, although I'll really believe the world's getting smarter when we develop AI. --Michael C. Price 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)--Michael C. Price 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You might like this. --Michael C. Price 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You have violated WP:3RR. I will be reporting this to where ever this gets reported; I'll leave a link once I figure that out. My requests are common and reasonable please just cite and attribute what currently appears to be OR and SYNTH.--OMCV (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore any administrator can see that you have been making some questionable personal comments. I'm well qualified to review quantum mechanic, anything I don't know I can learn quickly. I will admit I know very little about quantum mysticism but I don't find that a problem when trying to distinguish mysticism form mechanics. I won't be going away and you will have to do better than citing a whole book to indicate your hypothetical question isn't OR.--OMCV (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reported both of us for edit warring Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Maybe this will result in some outside opinions.--OMCV (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Likebox. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you have been involved. The discussion is about your activities at Quantum mysticism further information can be found at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, an edit summary like leave this page alone--- you don't know QM is really beyond the pale. The Misplaced Pages policy forbidding personal attacks applies everywhere, even edit summaries. Please try to remain civil while dispute resolution grinds its course. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for the reply. I basically stopped editing that article when I remembered that those sorts of discussions frustrate me outside of the occasional historical aside. The article is without a doubt in better shape now than it was two or three years ago. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan and Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Quantum mysticism

I'll take a look and give my opinion later today. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. I tried reading the talk page back-and-forth but got lost. If you could provide diffs of the disputed article content I would be happy to weigh in.--Michael C. Price 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

waiting

While you are waiting for a response, would you care to collaborate on Henry Melville? cygnis insignis 19:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

Your recent reversion to the Quantum mysticism article with accusations of vandalism is not acceptable. You have been edit warring to maintain your version of the article for too long. I have undone your recent reversions and any further edit-warring of that nature will result in a block. Now work with the other editors, assume good faith and discuss your concerns. Vsmith (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Comments like "because your prose sounds illiterate to my ears" and "since you guys don't like what I write" are completely uncalled for. They do nothing to advance the article or your point. Please read ever edit thoroughly before blasting another editor with personal comments. As I'm sure you know its best not to take the work of other editors personally.--OMCV (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Your prose sounds illiterate to my ears" is a statement of opinion about the prose in the article, not about the person. Similarly, "you guys don't like what I write" is also a statement about likelihood of reversion/deletion, not so much about the people. Neither should be construed as a personal comment: e.g. "You are an illiterate!", or "You hate me!", they are only blunt assessments of the situation.

I did read the new text, and it's full of philosophy jargon, which I find imprecise, illiterate, and obscure. Philosophy jargon certainly wasn't how Wigner, Everett, or even Dennett phrased it, and I don't know how it helps. On the other hand, this material seems to be leeching into the philosophy department, whether I like it or not, and that may mean that I will have to get used to their infernal language! Well, what can you do. Thanks for the warning.Likebox (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Your prose sounds illiterate to my ears" is counter productive opinion to state and is easily misconstrued as a personal comment. I'm amazed that you would object to some common pedestrian philosophical terminology. In contrast the way you use the term "wavefunction" in a nonstandard and loosely defined in the Quantum mysticism#Observation in quantum mechanics section. While the use of might be the correct according to some QM interpretation it does do not reflect the most common usage of the term "wavefunction". Wavefunction are generally not actively applied to everything instead the description is reserved for "particles" that have measurable "wave-particle duality" through experiments like a double-slit experiment. Without a doubt you can prove this wrong but I'm only pointing out the most common use in many fields and popular literature.--OMCV (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MY 2 cents: Likebox, your writing is difficult to read - it is too technical, assumes too much knowledge - I think this is why the latest edit to the introduction is generally considered an impovement. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dennett

It appears that Stanford's page on thought experiments indicate that Dennett is among the vocal opposition to thought experiments. As he mentions in his reflection on "where am I?" the entire story can be considered an incoherent ramble with no philosophical value. This conclusion is consistent with the rest of Dennett's work.--OMCV (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Warnings regarding the Quantum Mysticism Page

Stop injecting debate on quantum mechanics into an article about mysticism. Do not inject weasel words and do not revert good faith edits to remove them and have a clear point of view. This is borderline vandalism. You have been warned by another editor regarding your actions on the article. I have written walls of text explaining the rationales behind the changes. Doing WP:AWW is violating wikipedia policy and would not look well for you. You have dominated the editing of that page and refused much of the work of other editors and/or provided massive resistance and you are defending the subject matter in an unnatural perspective and worse, you are off-topic. Your debate and edits belong elsewhere, not in an article about quantum mysticism. Please do not make this turn into something more than it has to be. Accept that the page is about quantum mysticism and not a debate on the interpretations of quantum mechanics. You also personally attacked me on the talk page and I am citing that warning as well. --☯Lightbound☯ 22:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Quantum mysticism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.  Ronhjones  23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not edit my user page!!!

You edited my user page! I think you know that is unacceptable! You are supposed to respond to me on my talk page or yours. I have half a mind to report that! --☯Lightbound☯ 02:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have rolled it back. I do not appreciate you editing my user page, at all! --☯Lightbound☯ 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

In case you weren't notified, see this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Z10 72 hours - 4th block Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Likebox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

3RR?? What is this insanity? There wasn't even 1 R! All the edits were original modifications, with new text, to completely new versions. The other editor wasn't even unhappy about most of the edits. Some third party reported it for no reason. Did you look at the edit history? The "warning" cited on the 3rr page was written a month ago. This is the most absurd block I have ever seen, and it is just harassment pure and simple. I ask you to fuck off.

Decline reason:

Your language didn't instill much confidence in me about unblocking you, but your last sentence was the deal breaker. Please review WP:Guide to appealing blocks and let us know when you're ready to calmly appeal your block. Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Likebox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, it occurs to me that you might have no idea what was going on. This was the strangest event I have ever been a part of. I was editing quantum mysticism with mild, non-confrontational disputes with OMCV and another user, involving many complex edits, and good work by all, and suddenly out of the blue, without notification, nothing, I'm blocked! The person reporting me for violating 3RR is a person I have never heard of and had no dispute with, and the edits in question were not reverts, and were not thought of as reverts by any party involved in discussion. This is absurd, and I am freaked out. What is this nonsense? I looked at the 3RR report page: the edits cited there are normal pedestrian edits. The "warning" cited there is an old message related to something completely different ( I was reverting some stuff on the same page with OMCV, but we mostly worked out our differences without any problems). The talk page was full of useful discussion, and I have no idea who reported me with such a ridiculous report and why. Likebox (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry if you're confused. The report clearly illustrates four occurrences of reversions on your part. Two of them explicitly say "undid" in the summary, one says "restore", and one clearly removes a tag placed a few edits before by another editor. The requirement for warnings is usually to assist those who are not familiar with our edit warring policies. As these seem to have been brought to your attention many times before, including three previous blocks related to the topic, I'm not sure it's necessary to read it out to you again. Your civility in the previous requests is deplorable, and I can't reasonably question this block if I feel you're simply going to return to the activity that lead to it. Kuru 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Likebox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I did several actions which removed material separately was for clarity of discussion. Both me and the other person made about 15 edits in a row each, and some were good, and others not so good. So I went through them one by one, rolling back the ones that were not so great, with a short comment, as did lightbound. If any of these reverts became a war, rather than the usual bold-revert then we talked about them on the talk page. It's just that both of us made so many edits quickly that there were a lot of completely separate issues going on at the same time. It is important to understand that the "undid" and "roll-back" were for tag insertion and moving sentences, they were not deleting content or introducing content. This was pedestrian editing of the most mundane sort. This wasn't an edit war, there was no incivility, and there was no serious content dispute. Neither were there any three reverts or bolds which were about the same issue. Most of these things were tag additions that the other editor didn't understand, some were moving sentences, and each was bringing up a point which had never been brought up before. We were talking about some mostly trivial stuff--- a tag or the location of some text, which have little bearing on content, and did not in any way constitute an "edit war" (believe me, I know what that is). I don't know who brought this up, but it was not an involved party. The review process has been superficial at best: look at the edit history for goodness sakes. Also, just to add, the article has been improving, and all editors agree that the contributions on all sides have been in good faith, and constructive. If I have had a faulty interpretation of 3RR, it would be nice to know, so I don't run afoul of this policy. I thought it applied to edit wars, not to phases of heavy editing.

Decline reason:

You're not blocked. Closedmouth (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.