User talk:Jordgette

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

2009–2010 archive, in most cases things I did in my first two years on WP that pissed people off because I was trying to do the right thing (and, in a couple of cases, probably wasn't)


Wigner's "consciousness-cause-collapse" was never that popular and not that much has been published on it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that the original Copenhagen interpretation is probably closer to Wigner's view than the present interpretation that many call "Copenhagen," which denies any role of the conscious act of measurement. So it's odd (and perhaps historically confusing) that on two separate articles we would say that (1) Few people accept Wigner's view yet (2) Copenhagen is the most popular interpretation. I thought it was best simply not to make such claims, especially since the sources are 15-20 years old. (Really, opinions in QM haven't changed since the early '90s?) -Jordgette (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Opinions in this field do not change that rapidly. Copenhagen is, and always was, very vague about collapse. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey There[edit]

I am very frustrated with the resistance I am encountering on the 7 World Trade Center page. Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but that paragraph is, actually, full of inacurracies. I am passionate about the subject, but am not doing personal attacks or anything like that and I am promoting things that I believe to be in line with wikipedia's policies - so why is no one even checking what I pointed out?Smitty121981 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

I understand. In my experience, the more passionate an editor feels about a topic, the less likely they are to be a patient and sober collaborator on that article. It's all the worse when they show up on a Featured Article that a years-long history of controversy (check the archives) and demand a bunch of changes with a "prove me wrong" approach. Just because you raise some points about the sources, we aren't all going to jump to do an hour's work on your request, particularly at this point with the edit warring -- never a good idea. If I were you, I'd take some time off, and when you come back, tackle one specific detail at a time, starting with the most innocuous ones. -Jordgette (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes thank you for understanding. You will find that despite my enthusiasm I am both patient and sober in my actions. I am new to wikipedia and did not know about edit-warring... I was simply reacting to all of you ganging up on me in the only way I knew how (since I am new). Did you even read my revision to the 7 World Trade Center page? I still think it stands as valid and necessary. I feel that as a community you all failed to

greet me in the way that I now know wikipedia recommends [1]. Other users

have threatened to ban me (without proper cause) and three users including yourself have already falsely insinuated that I am only here to inject bias! I have made no personal attacks myself, I'd really like it if I didn't receive them either. Most of all, it's very annoying to be told to gather a consensus on the discussion page before editing, when so far NO ONE has been interested in actually reaching that consensus. I have received no less that 8 replies from 4 users on the discussion, and NOT ONE actually addresses the content, old or new.

Can you tell me, when a sentence is wrong and it needs to be changed, what is the best way to state this to others? Right now I am saying that the articles says "blah blah blah" but blah blah blah is not in the source. That seems to me like a good way to present the problem but this to you is a "prove me wrong" approach. How exactly should I approach this differently? Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981
Well first of all, I avoid working on topics that I feel very strongly about and am emotionally invested in. We all go through that early in our WP editing careers, and it just never works out. I looked at your contribs and it looks like you've worked almost exclusively on this article. Surely there are other topics you're interested in that aren't so controversial and closely guarded.
If you must work on this article, like I've said several times, suggest changes one issue at a time. Quote the sentence, and then show very specifically what the source says or doesn't say. If you want to make two changes to one sentence, handle each change separately. Wait a few days and then proceed to the next one. Don't ask people to prove you wrong; you're the one making the positive assertions, so you need to demonstrate your position to other editors, in a sober and deliberate manner. Even if you're 100% right, the more impatient and demanding you are, the more resistance you'll meet. There's no rush with any of this. The world won't end if there are inaccuracies in this article tomorrow.
Regarding bias, I'm afraid you showed it with that edit that was quoted. To insert "allegedly" and say "It is sometimes asserted...", both in contradiction to reliable sources, reveals that you were coming from a particular angle. Unfortunately that edit will always be there, so in terms of neutrality you dug a hole for yourself right off the bat. When you combine that, the article's history of being a lightning rod for crusading Truthers (who go heavy on the all caps in my experience), and its Featured Article status...I hope you can understand why people are reacting the way they are. -Jordgette (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well honestly I was expecting controversy, but I was not expecting so many personal attacks! It's not my fault that I actually know a lot about this subject and I found errors. Everyone is attacking me for that first stupid edit I made. I am sorry but saying "It is sometimes asserted..." does NOT contradict a reliable source. It is a true statement. This IS sometimes asserted. I had no idea that the wiki community was so resistant to any implication that the 9/11 story was anything but unanimously agreed upon by 100% of the public and 100% of professionals in the area, but the fact is that there are a lot of people who question things. Just because I acknowledged their existence does NOT mean that I agree with anything they say and it does NOT in any way imply that I was editing with bias. I am not arguing to keep this edit either but everyone keeps hounding me about it! And you know what? All caps are simply faster to type than bold or italic. Sorry.Smitty121981 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981
Calling someone out for possible neutrality issues, based on their edit history, is not a personal attack. And, just because a small percentage of people (or even of reliable sources) take a fringe position does not mean that an article must acknowledge that throughout. -Jordgette (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" IS a personal attack and I feel this is how I am being treated. The funny thing is that I never stated any affiliation, but it is now up to 4 users who have basically said that I am a "Truther" or "conspiracy theorist" and therefore I have nothing valuable to add to the conversation. All because I used the word "allegedly". And like I said, I agreed with the decision to remove my very first rookie wikipedia edit... but for the record, I made the edit because I truly believed it made the article more neutral. Smitty121981 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Double slit experiment[edit]

I have answered [2] --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Building 7 article[edit]

Another attempt I made at trimming the article was reverted. I am wondering if you supported the change I made since you did not raise any objections after I made the edit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been resisting the urge to comment on everything that is being done to this article, particularly since the discussion is looking increasingly like a pissing contest. I have no objections to the reversions that have been done. Without accusing you of anything, I don't get why you are so intent on shortening this one section of this one article, which is already plenty short and tight. Then, when your edits are reverted and the status quo merely restored, you demand that people explain why each detail needs to remain. I think the burden of explaining oneself is on the person making the changes, but what do I know. I disagree strongly about putting details in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. This article is on 7WTC, a building best known for its collapse, and so all details about 7WTC's collapse should be in the article specifically about 7WTC. Perhaps there should be an even more detailed article on the collapse of WTC7 alone? Even then, I would not cut from this article but instead would add to the new one. -Jordgette [talk] 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to my comments here and here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, I've spent most of the evening dealing with this mess as it is. -Jordgette [talk] 05:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to make those changes you proposed? Tom Harrison Talk 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that would be helpful. I have updated the draft to reflect changes in the article since it was posted. Please note that the semiprotection header is not on the draft (a bot deleted it), so that will need to be retained from the current version. Also please check that the ABC News photo is included -- a bot had deleted that as well, but I have restored it in my draft. Thank you. -Jordgette [talk] 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

As the filing party I'm letting you know I have concluded your filing on AE [3]. --WGFinley (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Jordgette, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Jordgette/7WTC.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal[edit]

I am appealing the topic ban that WG issued on November 30th and thought you might want to comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of Gus Heinze[edit]

Hi Jordgette, I thought an illustrated portrait of your talented and special uncle would be a good filler for his article until or if a copyright free photo can be procured. I hope you like it but if you have any thoughts or a change you'd like in it, let me know. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very nice! I'll tell him about it. -Jordgette [talk] 19:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

This may be strictly a formality, but it is always better to have a reminder. If you would like this notification removed feel free to do so.

Keep in mind that editors involved in articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks are subject to receiving discretionary sanctions if they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Such sanctions can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. Review the relevant decision here. Also please review the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures. On a specific point I would suggest you look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars and specifically see WP:FIXED and WP:PRIOR. Also see WP:MINOR.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This coming from someone who has just had an edit-warring block, 9/11 topic ban (which expired two days ago), and a block for violating the topic ban, and who lost all appeals of these sanctions. Why isn't there a WP:KETTLEBLACK? -Jordgette [talk] 18:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is such an essay at WP:KETTLE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Be sure to keep in mind WP:WIN as well. :) The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy new year[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For notable patience while working on a difficult topic. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Back atcha. I'll try to stay cool in 2012. -Jordgette [talk] 18:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Electromagnetic four-potential, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector (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) 11:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dark energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hubble bubble (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) 11:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)



Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this.

You are receiving this as you have recently reverted a user removing interwiki links.

Removal of interwiki links on a page linked to a wikidata item that contains the links is NOT vandalism. Please use this script which can identify if the links are found on wikidata.

If you have any questions regarding wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. Rschen7754 08:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) --Rschen7754 08:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Biocentrism move proposal[edit]

Seeing your edits there, it seems you might be interested in the biocentrism move proposal. (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your views presented on the Michael Hastings page[edit]

I want to address something you wrote on the Michael Hastings Talk page, in response to another user's proposed page content.

"The content is undue because it assumes the existence of "another side to the story," for which there is presently no reliably sourced evidence."

I ask you: can you prove the reliability of the sources you accept as reliable? No. You blindly take them as such, and give them the benefit of the doubt. You cite the LAPD's report of no foul play, which you do not know is reliable, to discredit all information contradicting it, since it is from an "official" institution. Since you do not know your source is reliable and cannot simply take the LAPD's statement as truth, the need is raised to include multiple sides to things and multiple sources, not just the story given by "officials" in an instance such as Hastings' death. I am not asking for someone's theory to be posted on Hastings' page. There are sources that for no reason should be considered less reliable than yours, facts that support the other side, but that in the Wikipedia page wouldn't have to be presented with bias, since they are only facts, contributing to the whole picture of the story. You ask for "evidence", but can you provide real evidence that there was no foul play? No. Your "evidence" again is the LAPD statement. On the other hand, there IS substantial evidence to warrant suspicion of this event at the very least. Hence, to retain an objective approach, there should be multiple sides accounted.

Now, you may respond saying, "You argue a straw-man's argument that could apply to anything. You could say 'can you prove that there was NOT extra-terrestrial involvement in [any wikipedia-recorded event]? No? Then that should be added to the page'". This is not what I'm doing at all. I am talking about legitimate possibilities that arise from legitimate sources, e.g. news reports and witnesses. When you have the same reports from multiple witnesses saying they heard explosions, that should be accounted (not to be confused with "stated as truth"). If you discredit and leave out a direct eye witness who may raise questions conflicting with the "reliable" source of the LAPD, you are showing bias to the latter. When you discredit and leave out multiple sources that should for no reason be considered unreliable, which say that the automation system of the Mercedes that Hastings crashed in could be hacked, you are again showing bias in favor of the LAPD's story.

I just saw your discussion of neutrality on the World Trade Center 7 topic on this page. The fact is, Wikipedia is not wholly neutral, or the 9/11 page, and many others, would be much different.

Atlos256 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Atlos256

Nobody seems to notice that I began the discussion by saying that I find Hastings' death suspicious myself. This is why I started watching the page. However, I am a skeptic first, and having dealt with many conspiracy theories in the past, I recognize the patterns of those who unduly wish to promote them on Wikipedia, and I tend to resist these efforts. This seems to be the way things work on Wikipedia; it isn't a very friendly place for conspiracy theorists. No, skepticism against the LAPD does not appear to be warranted at this time. I am talking about skepticism against conspiracy theorists who promote their narratives that have been invented out of whole cloth, via cherry-picked information that they unilaterally deem as "evidence" of a nefarious act (witnesses reported hearing an explosion...the fire was burning too hot...the LAPD covered the car with a sheet so they must be hiding something..."simple physics" says an engine could not be thrown so far etc. etc.) -- something that is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and generally, a really bad idea in life. -Jordgette [talk] 19:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed in this discussion on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie[edit]

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice job[edit]

I have to say that this is a pretty damn good edit. Too often people in your position will just delete material instead of doing the necessary research and adding other notable POV. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Even though I still don't feel like Clarke's quote is truly significant to the story, it is everywhere. So I thought I'd add rather than subtract. -Jordgette [talk] 04:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi... you might be interested in this - Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Brady Bunch.[edit]

Regarding your edit on the Brady Bunch article, "old style family sitcom" basically means a clean, G-rated, family friendly sitcom. Kind of like Leave it to Beaver or the Andy Griffith Show. Those kind of shows went out of vogue in the 70s with the advent of more mature, adult-oriented sitcoms like All in the Family, M*A*S*H* and the like.

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Double-slit experiment[edit]

I don't think you remove content from people who make significant additions. The idea is that others are supposed to improve the content someone else included, and not delete it. If people had always deleted instead of improving, Wikipedia wouldn't be such a huge encyclopedia. I'll volunteer to add the wikilinks and copy edit then, if you promise not to revert again. Tetra quark (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD: Bold, revert, discuss. "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." The editor made a bold addition, I reverted, and now we're discussing. This is how Wikipedia works. (Reverting the reversion during the discussion phase is not part of this process -- that is closer to edit warring.) It is certainly not true that we are obligated to keep everything that is added and only improve upon it -- imagine what controversial articles would look like if that were the case. Also, reverting an addition does not destroy anyone's hard work -- it can always be grabbed and re-worked from a past revision.
Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and the article should help general-audience people understand the double-slit experiment, its significance, as well as the significance of its variations. The addition, particularly in its first form, was a much too technical gloss of several extremely esoteric experiments. If I were a casual reader, I would have no idea what these experiments actually demonstrated or why it needed to be in the article. The article is better without this source of confusion. (See Revert Only When Necessary, "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." You'll recall that I did not revert your addition of the image to the lead; I only commented on it.) So please be mindful of this -- if it's going to be in the article, it needs to be explained clearly. This is important and not something that should be compromised upon. -Jordgette [talk] 21:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, at least you didn't remove it completely. What you said makes sense, even though I wouldn't see much problem in letting that in the article but anyway, thanks for the reply. Tetra quark (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Schrodinger's cat[edit]

Since what's going on at Schrodinger's cat is edit-warring by one editor, I am going to try to bring in additional outside editors to get clear consensus. All that's needed is one or two to resolve this thing. Just as a heads-up, I'm not suggesting you'd do this, but I don't think we should be tempted to propose weaker wordings that dilute what we feel must be in the introduction, in the interest of compromise. And at any rate it looks like Roger is not going to be satisfied with anything short of his own narrow interpretation. --ChetvornoTALK 21:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Basically I just wanted to get rid of the unnecessary [by whom?] flag. It seems that Roger is hell-bent on making the introduction somehow "intuitive" at the expense of historical and scientific correctness. It's frustrating that no one else has weighed in. Thank you. -Jordgette [talk] 23:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't like that tag either. But we're not going to be able to reach a compromise wording with him, so the only way to make him stop is by a clear consensus. I think the thing to do is just write what we believe is the best introduction, present it to other editors, and let the chips fall where they may. In that connection, I do feel the word "must" in the current wording is too strong, and will be confusing for general readers, implying that there is only one view of the experiment. I wonder if we could go back to a previous version that includes the wording "can be considered as simultaneously alive and dead"? This will take away one possible side issue. And the "can be considered" wording was the original anyway, wasn't it?--ChetvornoTALK 00:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to start a new section on the Talk page, so outside editors won't have to plow through the lengthy past debate. It will present Roger's wording and our wording side by side, and ask which should be used in the introduction. So we need good wording. --ChetvornoTALK 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Edits[edit]

Without having an obvious point of contact for you (such as an email) I am informing you via this page, of the following: Due to many prejudicial and wholly subjective edits and deletion of others' contributions to at least one page, your participation and edits on Wikipedia have come under close critical scrutiny. Unless you cease your subjective alterations to articles, you are a candidate for being banned from editing altogether. The main reason is that other users have written edits on articles, sourced from perfectly legitimate and acceptable documentation (such as legitimate legal documents accepted in a court of law); and you have "over-ridden" these inclusions to articles based on nothing more than your personal bias. You justify your erroneous actions with views such as : "Just because it is in a legal document doesn't make it acceptable". This absurd fallacy is akin to denying a birth certificate as proof of a person's being alive; or a court conviction being proof that a person was found guilty. Ridiculous. This goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and is an affront to the entire community. If you feel so strongly in your personal, subjective feelings on matters? Start a blog. Don't attempt to whitewash truth (as verified by unimpeachable facts) and ignore legitimate additions because they contradict your personal feelings. This is a practice which is poison to Wikipedia, and to the mission of the community. When a user makes a contribution to an article and you delete it (constantly and repeatedly), when the additions/edits have been perfectly sourced? You are showing yourself to be a tyrant who is preventing truth from being shared in a proper format from perfectly acceptable sources. I, and several others, have contacted a group of admins at Wikipedia (including the Wikimedia Foundation) and shown them proof of your bizarre rationale for deleting additions. They have agreed to contact you in an attempt to curb your behavior, which has become unacceptable. Unless you stop this practice of deleting legitimate edits, additions, and corrections I see no other recourse than to have you banned from contributing. This is for the good of the entire Wikipedia mission. Refusal to accept proven facts, just because they are at odds with your personal views, is not the way to contribute and improve Wikipedia. It is a malignancy and either you must refrain from your practice of damaging these article edits, or cease participation altogether. You will be contacted shortly, so look for it when you log on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"They have agreed to contact you in an attempt to curb your behavior, which has become unacceptable." Oh really? Give me a break. You obviously haven't been editing WP very long or have any idea how the encyclopedia and its process operate. "Banned from editing altogether" is reserved for the most extreme, egregious, and repeat violators; if you knew anything at all, you would inform me that I'm at most subject to a 24-hour block, pending a public noticeboard review (which I would welcome, if only to see you laughed at openly). But thanks for your diatribe and weak attempt at intimidation. ps.: The funniest thing about this nonsense is that it wasn't even me [4] who reverted your edit[5] from the article in question. We know it's you because the IP address on that edit,, is eerily similar to the one auto-signed for you on this page above. Why don't you threaten the editor who actually reverted it? Or are you so inexperienced you can't tell who that is? This is such a massive fail, I am tempted to post it to everyone I know. -Jordgette [talk] 04:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on that notice -- I guess the Wikimedia Foundation is backed up with handling routine editor conflicts, huh? Can you talk to them and have this matter expedited please? Because I need to know whether or not you are having me banned. The resulting anxiety is preventing me from leaving the house, and I haven't showered in a week. -Jordgette [talk] 21:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fine-tuned Universe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Ross (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) 10:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Separating Form and Content[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your work on the double slit page. Just wanted to point out that using language like "the image to the right" is not an assumption that can safely be made on webpages. For example, on the iPhone this image is centered. On a braille reader the image would just be rendered as the alt text. I see this from time to time on Wikipedia and thought I would start to inform editors. Cheers. (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey thank you.[edit]

Just discovered this comment. It apparently helped. (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jordgette. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


That posting of yours just now was not a good idea. To make such claims, make it by email to me on one of the other arbs. (but in this case I am well aware of this) DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't me, that was another editor. Thank you for your response. I'll take the case to a more appropriate venue if need be. -Jordgette [talk] 23:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Biocentric universe[edit]

First, I have to say that this post is objectionable in any number of ways, and your frankly argumentative approach in the discussion overall does nothing to give anyone reason to believe that you are particularly capable of approaching this topic neutrally, or that you have much experience in dealing with some of the more controversial issues around here, which this one seems to be. Having said that, I have to agree that the article, as it was, probably should be deleted. First, it is worth noting that the book says it puts forward a new theory of the universe. More or less in accord with WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term theory to describe things which meet the scientific definition of that term, which includes conjectures which have empirically testable aspects. As others had noted in the deletion discussion, there is apparently nothing in this hypothesis which qualifies as empirically testable, and on that basis the hypothesis does not meet the general criteria for being described as a theory. Nor has it, apparently, received much if any attention as a new model of philosophy, as none of the sources I saw seem to treat it in the way such a new system would be treated in that field. That could of course, change. If in the future it does, then at that time a version of the article could be recreated. But that does not seem to have happened and, and WP:TOOSOON might be seen to apply now.

From what I can see, the ideas put forward in the first book at this time have been given, if anything, treated as being less creditable than Erich von Daniken's early writings are given, and they receive virtually no credibility whatsoever. Honestly, this is not a surprise. I remember seeing a few years ago a source which indicates that, more or less, every other year some academic in a directly related field publishes a new book or paper putting forward yet another new theory about the date of composition of the Gospel of Mark. And, so far as I can see, few if any of them have any real impact in the field whatsoever, as the academic consensus for the dating of Mark hasn't changed in some time. For works by academics writing outside their fields, like this one, the level of acceptance is even lower.

This is not to say that it might not be possible, and perhaps reasonable, to have an article about the first book as a book. In fact, I think I mentioned that possibility. Such an article would probably include three major sections, regarding publication, content, and reception. The description of the ideas put forward in the book would reasonably be included in the content section, and responses, reviews, etc., would be reasonably included in the reception section. Might I suggest that your time and efforts might be better spent in perhaps working to develop an article on the book as a book, rather than in casting dubiously founded and rather explicitly problematic aspersions on others? John Carter (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No thank you, I am not so interested in this topic as to pursue it anymore here. The AfD decision was Merge, and the admin wrote, "The opinions are irreconcilable, and further discussion will not clarify anything. In such a case, the compromise solution has advantages: Merge to the principal author." My last attempt was, I feel, an entirely balanced and neutral attempt to effect this merge[6], including adding your point about falsifiability to the Robert Lanza article and an external link to a blog post criticizing his idea. But within minutes that edit was reverted, and what we ended up with is a straight delete, despite the admin's decision. That same editor reverted the addition four times in one day (I added it only once) but I let that slide. If I cared that much about the topic, I'd take it to RfD; I don't. But I am very disappointed that a call for compromise ended up being zero compromise, and that now I am being criticized for my behavior. -Jordgette [talk] 20:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)