Jj1236
Welcome edit
|
Cognitive dissonance edit
Please see Talk:Cognitive_dissonance#Ben_Franklin_effect. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Rationality edit
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)
Reply edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Mind edit
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)
Talkback edit
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)
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)
Hi,
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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?
If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian
The questionnaire edit
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
|
|---|
|
|
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
|
|---|
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) |
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Jj1236. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Jj1236. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Jj1236. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)