User talk:Jtankers

Re-factorting of your comments

Hi there it is not generally accepted on wikipedia to re-factor your talk page comments once someone has already responded to them, as it has the potential to make any follwoing comments looks disjointed or can bias a discussion. If you wish to modify your comments use the strikeout comment, like this using <s> </s>. I've reverted your comments but if you want to re-add them using the strikeout facilty, just let me know. Cheers ^Khukri 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. ^Khukri 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the original post with strike through and the replacement, and apologized on LF1975's talk page for apparently overwriting his post. Thank you --Jtankers (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of your talk page

Hi James, You may want to read WP:UP as it seems you are using your talk page as a blog to record your discussions. This is not really what talk pages are intended for, though you are editing the LHC article these discussions on your talk page are not related to Wikipedia, and are best suited to the many blogs and forums you are involved with. Cheers ^Khukri 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khukri, I read the rules and cleaned up my talk page accordingly...

Status

Hi James, could you ask your people in the know please what the status of the injunction case is please. Many thanks. ^Khukri 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Case is moving forward, June hearing date is unchanged... Will update with any significant news. --Jtankers (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

LHC revert discuss

--Phenylalanine (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When you're entering edit summaries, could you please append your summary to the end of the field, leaving the auto-generated text within the /* */ tags as is? The stuff within the tags is treated differently when viewing page history. By editing the text inside the tags, you break the auto-section-linking mechanism, and make it difficult to tell what part of the edit summary has been written by you. -- Mark Chovain 07:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK --Jtankers (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[report]

You have been brought up in an AN/I report regarding your edits to LHC articles. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I LHC Fringe Theorists

Quote:

More to the point in this case, while I have the utmost respect for anyone who has earned a position at CERN, Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the LHC is a potential danger. It doesn't matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN's rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group's actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jtankers

User:Jtankers, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jtankers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jtankers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jaysweet (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted anything I though was WP:SOAP, all you needed to do was ask, I do try to be reasonable!  :) --Jtankers (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mensa survey

James, I urge you to abandon your references to that Blodgett survey. I am personally probably a little bit prejudiced because I find the whole Mensa concept borderline obnoxious, but I think using it really weakens your case and makes you look foolish. The problems are, at the least, that the sample is too small, the sample is uncontrolled and unprotected against bias, there is no good way to protect the result from the effects of people who are simply ignorant about the subject, and the arithmetic averaging of probabilities is a totally absurd way of estimating a probability where the individual samples range over many decades, because it is dominated by the largest few individuals' guesses (you would probably not like the geometric mean, where we would multiply all ten values together and take the 10th root of the result, as an example of a better but still useless average). If the sample were very large, the median would be better, or perhaps the probability corresponding to the average of the logarithms. If Blodgett has any sense (something academic degrees do not reliably reveal) he should really know better. (I don't necessarily have much either, but I have worked and published in statistics [Wheaton et al. Ap.J. 438:322, 1995], so I know a little.) But anyhow, that survey is something to roll one's eyes about, and discreditable to keep bringing up.

Although we disagree, I would like to say I feel for your situation as a human being who is obviously sincerely very worried about the LHC. I wish I could reassure you that it is going to be OK, but I guess you are doomed to be anxious for at least 50 months. I see your user page is apparently also in danger, but there is really nothing there that you can't do just as well off-Wiki -- except use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the sincere words, but I put my fate in with Dr. Rossler and Walter Wagner until until I am confident that the risks are lower than a coin flip or two. Have you read this: Comic, LHC, Wil Wheaton, and Black Holes Cheers! --Jtankers (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we just have to let go and hope for the best. If you really want to pursue formal dispute resolution, of course you should do it, but I think it will be an uphill battle. I'm essentially certain the physicists really are pretty much of one mind about it. Meanwhile, I am working on my sorted list of references. I suppose something of the kind two months ago would have helped, but maybe it's not too late to be useful. That's a different Wil Wheaton by the way (I'm actually Bill Wheaton, aka Wm. A. Wheaton); he lives about 5 miles west of us. We used to get phone calls from love-sick young ladies all over the world, as I refuse to have an unlisted phone number if I'm going to have a phone at all. But I am glad that I am considered unbiased.... I can be found at www.wwheaton.com/waw etc, and at Caltech. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to pursue formal dispute resolution, but what have I got to lose, the planet? Very funny about the phone calls. I knew that you were not the same Wil Wheaton, but I did not want to spoil the fun at LHCConcerns.com. --Jtankers (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

You've mentioned in a couple of areas that you're interested in, but unsure how to begin, a dispute resolution process. WP:DR is the place to start. Your concerns might benefit from a well-stated Request for Comment. Hope this helps. — Scientizzle 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The issue is currently being discussed here Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive446. I will review the Request for Comment option. Thank you. --Jtankers (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: COI

Hi James, Regarding your comment here at the COI noticeboard, who are the other editors from CERN working on the article? As far as I was aware I'm the only person who's paid any interest in this issue from CERN. Cheers ^Khukri 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Walter Wagner is the source of that information, he can be contacted via the LHCdefense@hotmail.com email address. Cheers --Jtankers (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

LHC safety risks

Jtankers, thanks a lot for bringing this paper to my attention: "On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders". If you find any other new research on the LHC safety, don't hesitate to add it to the safety article. I expanded the LHC article lead and safety sections to take into account this new research. --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jtankers (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)