User talk:Shimon Yanowitz

Welcome!

Hello, Shimon Yanowitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --HappyCamper 04:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to My Test Page

Go to my Special:MyTalk/My Test Page

Go to My Templates

Understanding Categorization

What I ment here is that you don't categorize an article in the stub category and a stub parent category. If you add a stub-tag to an article, the article is automatically categorizes in the stub category. So don't add a category tag. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, understood that where stub-tags exist, I should not add any other categorization. Is this correct?

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And you should avoid adding to many categories to any article. I added the paradox category, which puts this article in a group of corresponding articles. Several articles in this category are only listed there. Because the paradox is about a lot of subjects, it shouldn't be listed in all those categories. All top categories like science and technology should be kept clean. Only in the highest exception, you can add those categories... because... all categories in Wikipedia normaly hold only 10 to 100 articles.

Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding References

There is a <ref></ref> function and the {{Reflist}} tag. It works like this.^[1]

References

^ The author

Is this what you mean? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but since you mentioned it, can you please elaborate a bit about References?

Also - what is the ; symbol that you typed before the word - References ?

Thanks,

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Quotations

If I might interject, if you want to transfer content,including wiki-markup from one Wikipedia page to another, you simply click the edit button to bring up the wiki markup, then copy that content, and paste it in the edit window of the desired destination page. If instead you mean copying some other random webpage into Wikipedia, the general convention is to format it with wiki markup yourself. There are exceptions however, in those cases, raw html markup added to the wiki page will be properly interpreted (and in the case of articles, will often be resolved into markup by another friendly editor, provided it is valid content). -Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Verdatum. Let me try this righ here, by copying and pasting your signiture, which contins markup and hyperlinks. Here goes (next line):

-Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant ! It seems to have worked ! Thanks go also to Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk).

Can you also please explain the Insert block of quoted text option in the Toolbar, which creates this:

<blockquote> Block quote </blockquote>

Block quote

Thanks,

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychophysical Paradox

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Request for Help in Choosing the Best, of The 63,800 "Verifiable" Reference Books and Papers on the Psychophysical Paradox (or Problem or Debate)

For Books, please use this Google Book-Search [1] for the 1610 books, which qualify as "Verifiable" References to this article.

I would appreciate your help in choosing the most valuable, notable or prominent of these books to be used as references to my article.

Note: The above search includes books only! If you want to consider including Journal-Papers, as references or citations candidates, , please use this Google-Scholar-Search [2] for the total of 63,800 books and papers, which qualify as "Verifiable" References to this article.

Please note also, that this debate has drained my cognitive and attention reserves. Your empathy and help in contribution of complete Templates, which I can then as simply as possible "paste" or embed in the article - is highly appreciated.

It would also help me in learning how to be a better article Contributor.

Please use this book as a start.

Please help in finding quality references pertaining to Multiple Scientific and other Disciplines, such as Physics, Philosophy, Biology, Anatomy, Neurology, Mathematics, Theology, Paradoxes, Medicine, etc., which serve to demonstrate the vastness and enormity of the scope of this subject.

Please paste your contributions in my Talk-Page.

Please do not remove the lines above and below, which separate this section.

Thanks,

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please place your Reference Contributions below this line

Psychophysical parallelism

Shimon, the material you keep trying to insert is not acceptable, and if you try to get it in by repeat-reverting, all that will happen is that you end up violating wp:3rr and getting sanctioned. In fact, one more revert and I am going to refer you for edit-warring. Brute force is not going to work here. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Psychophysical parallelism. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You may read my (talk) writings, also a work in progress.

I skimmed your discussion page that looked like a post page. I posted the below comment there and removed it to find this page. Sorry if I posted the wrong spot.

Perception is an unusual issue, that all can perceive, but no one can "pass" or "share" between consciousnesses, except through abstract communication symbols, which are perceptions in and of themselves. The core problem, as I see it, is how mere emergent distributed system properties, give rise to the tangibles of *singular* *continual* "soul" / being / "spirit" sensations. I attribute it to quantum physics entanglement measurement instantaneous wavefunction collapses, but can't yet fully get to the systems QM mathematics enough to formulate it. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I am just getting into Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (revisionist version 2001), for more gist on the subject, for formalizing the systems math. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum consciousness, EPR Paradox, John Wheeler, E. P. Wigner, John von Neumann*, David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, and even Max Tegmark, have some definitions and allusions to consciousness, or in my view, structured macroscopic matter's, relationship to measurement wavefunction collapses, and instantaneous self too. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro positions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Wigner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_neumann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

Contrary positions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark

http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm

John von Neumann: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: AD 1955. Discusses the measurement partitioning issue of unitary evolution and nonunitary nonlinear wavefunction collapse, and the illusory boundary between the microscopic and macroscopic, where macroscopic systems are unitary for all intents, but become nonlinear for mystery measurement reasons. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My writings with some monad systemic connectedness thoughts, (try search or browser-page-highlight for "quantum", "measurement", "soul", "entanglement", and "instantaneous"): LoneRubberDragon (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoneRubberDragon

http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/

Image tagging for File:MagrittePipeweb.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MagrittePipeweb.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek

Pleas stop adding original research to the lead, you are breaching both WP:OR and WP:LEAD. Plus you are doing it with overlinks. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of WP:BRD, you were bold, I've reverted you, now you go to the talkpage. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not gone to the talk page and you have been reverted numerous times. It is not for Wikipedia to describe numerous situations and "let the reader decide" without reliable sources. "So many others" as you put it, are not a reliable source. Also, the lead section is supposed to summarize the article, which, by including what you are, is not correct per policy. Now, please take to the article talk page before once again changing the page. User:JpGrB 14:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Star Trek (film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a discussion leading to a resolution to violate Wikipedia's "no original research" rule, or anything similar on the article's talk page, I can't find it. If you can show me that some consensus was, in fact, reached, please link me to this discussion, or appropriate diffs. In the meantime, do NOT repost this copy, or something substantively similar. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a comment on their page and acting accordingly doesn't count as a discussion, Sorry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I completely reject your summary as original research and insist that you initiate a formal discussion on the talk page, and allow an agreement ( <— link to definition, in case you're unsure of the meaning) to be reached before making any similar edits. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having monitored this - I completely agree - your additions are original research and should not be added to the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one valid reason that your viewpoint isn't covered. There isn't a reliable source that supports it. The other one does, i included a link to it on the talk page. If you can't find a source as is approved by wp:rs then it is original research and thus not allowed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it bro, unless it sourced reliably it is not and will not be included sorry. Here's a link [[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was Original Research, because it put forth a school of thought on a matter not covered by reliable sources. And in the places where it DOES lean on sources, you include your own interpretation of them.

Indeed. You might want to take a moment to review Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you NEED to source this stuff. It's not enough to assert that "most people" think the way you do, you have to PROVE it. --King ÖÖmie III 13:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is exactly what the "Alternate Reality" is. It is an unsources assertion, and a wrong one, at that. An "Alternate Reality" would exist in a parallel universe where events unfold in such a way that Spock is eventually Captain and James T. Kirk is First Officer, thus establishing a different reality than exists at the end of this movie. Physics terms have a meaning. They are not subject to emotional interpretation, no matter how strong your emotion is, about them. Thanks. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with anything. You need to provide a SOURCE for the movie taking place in the past of the existing universe as opposed to an alternate reality, regardless of how strongly you feel about the word, or how rational it seems, in the same way we can't just say "There is no god" in articlespace without a source, rational as it may be to believe so. --King ÖÖmie III 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate reality vs Reality warping

The term of alternate reality is understood by the general public and Star Trek fans alike to mean an alternative version of the current universe. This may be incorrect, but the wikilink to here explains the events of the Star Trek film (and also Dimension Jump) well enough. Reality warping does not, it describes a super power. If you wish to discuss this further then go to the Star Trek talkpage or parallel universe talkpage or reality warping talkpage, just stop reverting. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. I understand what you were trying to do, however the method you chose was not how things are done, which sounds like cold comfort but the truth is if you want to change the lead of a very high traffic page (200k on the day it was released, to 9k for the last few days) then you need to discuss it first. We have BRD for a reason. If you want to persuade other editors that you wording is correct then you need to do that before you make the edit, and after a bold edit there is a spike in users reading the talk page, and that can be used to your advantage, you have the eyes of those watching the page that is the time to make your case. As it stands the section you were concerned about has references (from the director of the film) so it is not unsourced any more, if you still feel it needs changing then now would be the time to make the case, although the current consensus (and sourced by the words of those who wrote and produced the film) is for the words "alternate reality". You may also wish to take you ideas to reality warping and parallel universe. Otherwise, happy editing, not everything you do needs to be fight. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline_personality_disorder_page

I have responded to your question. You can find my response at User_talk:Someguy1221#Borderline_personality_disorder_page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a new reply on my talk page. If you would like to stop receiving these notices, just let me know. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:MagrittePipeweb.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:MagrittePipeweb.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

On the toolbar at the top of the page click "view history". This brings up a list of who has edited, the page, with a "thank" you can click. There are other ways to show your appreciation to fellow editors. compliments on a talk page, and going to a page they are working on to add information or help copy edit are collegial and much appreciated. I'm still feeling my way around this place, it takea a while. Best,E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see E.M.Gregory got your message [4] but, it was on their 'User page', not the 'Talk page' at User talk:E.M.Gregory where such is usually expected. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 02:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The author

[1]