User talk:Jj1236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Jj1236! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jesstalk|edits 07:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Cognitive dissonance[edit]

Please see Talk:Cognitive_dissonance#Ben_Franklin_effect. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


On the topic of the opening clause of the rationality page, the page starts with "In philosophy", however I feel this is unnecessary or irrelevant. A few days ago I noticed it was edited after I mentioned that it broke xkcd's rule that following the first link of a wikipedia page that wasn't italicized or in parentheses would eventually lead you to philosophy. If you look, you'll see my edit isn't removing it but just italicizing it. ;)

Your irrationality on The Observable Universe page[edit]

Concerning your logically fallacious comment on the Observable Universe page "reverted to standard scientific context" for re-adding "the big bang" at the beginning. That is NOT a justification. Your statement no more explains why "study on bananas" should be added to the beginning anymore than "The Big Bang". The comment is "unhinged" as one troll here would say as it is NOT LINKED TO ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT IS THERE, not even in the beginning AND THERE IS NO STANDARD SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT MENTION. It is obvious propaganda from biased weasels like yourself. Get a life and stop trolling Mr. Irrational. Who, non-genius, needs to believe in your magical unseen big explosion from billions and billions of Carly Sagan years ago to see anything? NO ONE NON-GENIUS. Stop being a troll. The Big Fairy Fart is a recent comment and the builders of Stone Henge, and the Pyramids, and all the other megaliths we can't build all over the world from ancient times, which does not support evolutionary fairy theory, nor the Catholic Galileo and Christian Copernicus did not need it to see stars anymore then I do. FAIL. NOWEASELWORDS (talk)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jj1236. You have new messages at Cosmic Latte's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


You will note that I had only removed one category for the Mind article. I had rolled back an erroneous edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Mind is in Category:Mind and Category:Mind is in Category:Cognitive science therefore means that Mind does not have to be in Category:Cognitive science. It is redundant and clutters an already cluttered category. 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited John Michell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I replied on my talk page. I hope we can sort this out. I agree there was something confusing there, and should be clarified. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jj1236. Just to make sure we’re on the same page (no pun intended), regarding the removal of the asymptotic confinement from the list of open physics problems – as far as I know neither single quarks nor glueballs have been observed to the present date. Mass gap and asymptotic confinement are one of the Millenium Prize problems. Agree to put it back? Thanks! Almaionescu (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I've got no reply from you, I reverted some of the edits that you made to the Unsolved Physics Problems page. It's the house rule that we should not draw our own conclusions and publish as fact. Asymptotic confinement is not solved and no one saw glueballs; age-metallicity universal relation in galactic disks is not solved by surveying only the Milky Way as you concluded from the references; physical information is still not fully understood and it's a different issue from black holes although partially related. If you have references about the official resolution of any of these problems please cite and move to resolved problems tab instead of erasing them - that's what the tab is for. If you think a problem is not well-stated, please contribute to Wikipedia and state it better instead of erasing it. Thank you! Almaionescu (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You've also deleted several entries under biophysics with comments as "an answer is known for decades, only details remain". Please insert the answer along with the original problem statements and citations to the source of your answer in the Solved problems tab. Thank you! Almaionescu (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jj, great to hear from you and thanks for replying! First thing first, just to clarify, it's not necessary to actually set up my talk page in order to receive messages; the page you are talking about is my user page and it's a totally different story (As proof, I got a message on my talk page Dec 3rd from the Teahouse). You can reply to me by clicking the 'talk' button in my signature, on your talk page. I will however take your input seriously and make my talk page more welcoming. I have already explained 2 days ago why I made the reverts, see above. I wrote to you a short message (Dec 7th) about a single edit to get a communication going; 3 days later I received no reply so I did what I thought it was best and also notified you since I couldn't have known you were going to visit ever again. I am not even sure why do I have to say this since you can see the edit history and dates. The same day I reverted the changes(2 days ago) I also left a message on the page's talk tab - which I am surprised you didn't see by now - stating the reason for which I did all reverts 'Cite or it didn't happen'. My point is the following: lower down the page there is a tab for problems solved in recent decades; some of your edits for deleting content have the comment that the problem was solved. If the problem is solved and you know the solution you should move to 'solved' and provide the solution rather than simply delete the problem. There is a rule for editing or creating (which is to cite reliable sources) and the same should be applied to deleting content because an editor thinks a problem is fixed, especially when there is a special spot for that content on the same page. As mentioned before, if you think a problem is not well stated, you should improve the content rather than just deleting it (see asymptotic confinement) especially since there is no known fix to this date. Not only it is of public interest to understand how where those problems solved, but also your comment if not enough proof they actually were solved and a fix is acknowledged by the scientific community. You don't need to worry about me reverting the changes because deleting is actually really easy compared to putting the information back. Strictly logically, proving that you are right to delete the content falls onto you since the content was already there - see burden of proof. Sorry for the long reply! Now, how shall we proceed? To reply click on 'let's discuss' or on 'talk', not on my nameLet's discussAlmaionescu (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jj and good luck with the exams! I left you a message on the article talk page and I'm waiting for your input when you've got the time. Between the two of us you're the expert in biophysics so I reverted that; waiting for your input on the other 3 things. Actually make that 2 messages since I've got a proposal for mathematical physics. Let me know either there or on my (talk) page Alma 17:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of rationality[edit]

Hi Jj1236!
I really like your improvement of the definition of Rationality, however, is this your own way of defining rationality, or does it come from the referenced source cambridge dictionary??? Lova Falk talk 08:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Color vision[edit]

I reverted your change, as it was not a rewrite as it claimed, but rather a very different point and POV, and unsourced. Try again, but please add a source. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New sections at bottom, please[edit]

Hi, you placed a new section at the top of Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics. Please note that we have a convention to put new talk page sections always at the bottom of the page. If you use the "New section" link at the top of a talk page, you can't go wrong. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)