User talk:Second Quantization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:IRWolfie-)
Jump to: navigation, search

Just to update, I will be effectively away indefinitely beyond minor editing and topics that give me sufficient reason to come back. Second Quantization (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, welcome back from your "block", nevertheless! Bishonen | talk 23:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atheism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gallup and Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


I undid your changes to pseudoscience as you change the definition to something it is not and also rewrite and explanation to be confusing. Note that religion is not science and is not pseudoscience, but your changes would have it being pseudoscience. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the source. Also, religion does not necessarily conflict with science, only pseudoscientific components like creationism does. Second Quantization (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin[edit]

Can you look at the comments on the talk-page for Dean Radin. A user is criticizing the Dale DeBakcsy review and there is also a debate about a positive review for Radin's book in a fringe journal (Journal of Scientific Exploration) and if it should be included on his article or not. I don't think it should be but I would like to see others input on this, I am very tired on discussing this with these two users, they are not listening to what I have said so I am giving up there now, I would like to see some input from some other users such as yourself who have edited the article thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring warning[edit]

The warning should be for those who revert without discussing on the talk page, shouldn't it? You choose instead to warn an editor who has been repeatedly bringing the questions to the talk page. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"The warning should be for those who revert without discussing on the talk page, shouldn't it?" No, read WP:BRD. Also, you replied to Dominus today. People don't hang out on wikipedia 24/7, give it a few days for the discussion to develop, Second Quantization (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Western astrology[edit]

There is no pseudoscience note nor category on Western astrology as there is on Astrology and Hindu astrology. Do you think there should be one? Would you be willing to add it, please? Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I see an ip editor tried to do that by summarising the astrology and science. I'll fix that up, Second Quantization (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated! I (over-)linked pseudoscience in the lede and added cat:pseudo. Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)