User talk:Strecosaurus
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
[edit]
|
July 2015
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to False vacuum, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Chasewc91: Is it original? I've heard it mentioned multiple times as the "plan B" explanation of why the vacuum does not decay if there is none better. This is just a version of "quantum suicide" idea. In any case, as you are obviously more experienced, you decide; but if you decide to remove it, then for consistency it should also be removed from the article on Many-worlds interpretation, section 8.2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 July 2015
- If this information is available in other sources, feel free to add it back with a citation to a reliable publication. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more details. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Chasewc91: I'll try to find something reference-able (from Max Tegmark, for instance), in the meantime that I haven't yet done this, in the name of consistency I insist on removing the same information from section 8.2 of Many-worlds interpretation where it is unsupported by any source reference (the link 73 in the first sentence there refers to an entirely unrelated question).
Do you have any unreliable sources? Or discussions on this? It very much intereests me Perfection (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this source - http://www.academia.edu/758131/Ex_Nihilo_Nihil_Fit_Heidegger_Nothing_and_False_Vacuum_Decay - reliable enough? Here is the relevant quote:
If we exist in a false vacuum and it does in fact decay, there would literally be no consequences as all existence as we know it, whether we interpret it in terms of being or becoming, would cease completely and well-nigh instantaneously. There's be no one to notice. There is even an argument in the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics analogous to that of quantum suicide (you can only experience world-lines in which you exist, therefore suicide will always fail no matter how improbably) that is in fact stronger than its analogue.The quantum suicide argument has solipsism as its Achilles heel. ALL observers in the universe would be annihilated in a vacuum metastability event, avoiding this weakness of the original argument.
@Chasewc91: Or here: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2009/10/if-god-hates-the-higgs-boson-we-can-build-paradise-on-earth/ quote: Hans Moravec suggested in his book Mind Children (1988) that if you tried to turn on a particle accelerator a number of times and every time something prevents it from running, this might be a sign that something like quantum suicide is happening. The functional accelerator might be doing something dangerous, such as causing vaccuum decay that instantly wiped out the Earth, acting like a global quantum suicide device. [If you don't reply, I'll assume it's okay, I don't see why it isn't.]
- Hi, this isn't really my area of expertise unfortunately. I just removed it because it was not sourced. Post on Talk:False vacuum and see what other editors think, or you could add it back to the article with sources added. Let me know if you need help with this. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Chasewc91: I've found and added the full-blown quote from the original 80s' book (together with the reference), so I think it's settled now.
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quenya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 15:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Ref
[edit]Do you have a ref for that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
uh.. for what exactly?
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Edit warring
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Warfarin
[edit]Could you please produce some evidence that there was ever any such person by that name? Perhaps it's an issue of transliteration between the Cyrillic and Roman alphabets.
Otherwise I'll have to remove it from the article.
Thank you. DS (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
of course, for example there is a movie named after him - "Khrustalyov, my car". and it cannot possibly be an issue of transliteration, these are different names with different meanings (both derived from completely unrelated normal Russian words plus the -ov suffix)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 14
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Gospel of Afranius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transfiguration.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I very much appreciate your edits there (and elsewhere). But it's good to keep in mind policies like WP:PRIMARY/WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
December 2023
[edit] Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kalam cosmological argument, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]Wikipedia:Third opinion that you listed a dispute on here is for requesting an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. Your current disagreement is clearly not between two editors. The 3rd opinion page also says "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page". Bold in the original. It has not been discussed on talk at all, least of all by you yourself (and, indeed, your 3rd opinion listing refers back to the discussion at [1], which is circular to say the least). Whether from confusion or something else, you are misusing our processes. You have been blocked for two weeks for edit warring at The Gospel of Afranius, misleading edit summaries — such as this one — persistently ignoring consensus, and wasting other editors' time. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC).