Welcome!
Hello, Gibbzmann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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 need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
I would have guessed you were a scientist without even reading your userpage by the questions you ask! I understand your frustration and share it as we are used to reading about errors on data and the limits of certainty. Historians however are a different breed and can weave certainty where people like us only see HUGE error bars! As for Conservapedia nicking the article - that is naughty without giving wikipedia credit. What is most worrying is that they approve of so much of it that it is virtually unchanged. Basically there are NO documents from the time of Jesus at all. Earlier stuff is hinted at and there is no way that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses - look at the differences between them (and the errors - when was the census?). From about 2nd Century CE you have an attempt to ground Jesus in history and pretty much everything dates from about then. The absolute earliest anything was written down was at least 30 to 40 years after Jesus was supposed to have died - a good generation or two in those days. The Pauline letters are a bit odd as they make no reference to details of Jesus that would give a dating to his life and anyway Paul never met Jesus, all his writings are from visions. If you are interested there is loads more but I won't bore you! Take a look at the articles and get used arguments that go along the lines of "well loads of scholars say so therefore it must be true" and you find out they are all from bible colleges. I look forward to working with you - again welcome to wikipedia! Sophia 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I appreciate you don't know the history of the article and so the bugbear which is "correlation-isn't-causation"; my aim was to help you understand my reaction to your post. I'm well aware it's fundamental to science, and even know the standard funny stories explaining why (number of catholic priests and the price of gin in the USA, and one about hurricanes, if I recall).
The problem with your changes to the Tobacco smoking article were nothing to do with those, though - they were that I can't find the data in the report you've cited to support the claims you're trying to back up. This, too, is fundamental to science, and pretty critical to scientific analysis... Nmg20 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with your opinion regarding the questionable use of an undergraduate student's blog as an 'expert' source for the Darwinius entry. I have not had much luck in getting the questionable source removed, so instead, I'm just trying to make the credentials of the blogger made explicit. However, Dave Souza is not amenable to this compromise. Might you lend your opinion in the talk page? Thanks. 130.13.170.197 ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, thanks for your efforts at Darwinius, and for lending a rational mind to the discussion. Your arguments were very compelling; were it not for the obvious ownership issue going on at Darwinius, they would have made quite a bit of headway. I'm also impressed that you were able to maintain your cool despite said ownership --- something I myself was not able to do. 130.13.179.166 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
So I noticed you are existentialist. You should read/edit the wiki page I just created for The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer. - Tesseract2 ( talk) 04:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So I read on the Nonlocality page that both entanglement and the absence of local hidden variables have been empirically demonstrated. De Broglie-Bohm allows for each of these, but as the Nonlocality page add: "A more general nonlocality beyond quantum entanglement —retaining compatibility with relativity— is an active field of theoretical investigation and has yet to be observed." My question is: in the meantime, what views provide more complete explanations? I have heard of the Copenhagen interpretation (which is supposedly much less popular these days). I have also hear of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, although it is so incongruent to the way I understand my universe that I prefer to wait for Bohm (multiple universes breaking off at each quantum event???). - Tesseract2 ( talk) 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Sarah Palin, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
Kelly
hi!
21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Gibbzmann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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 need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
I would have guessed you were a scientist without even reading your userpage by the questions you ask! I understand your frustration and share it as we are used to reading about errors on data and the limits of certainty. Historians however are a different breed and can weave certainty where people like us only see HUGE error bars! As for Conservapedia nicking the article - that is naughty without giving wikipedia credit. What is most worrying is that they approve of so much of it that it is virtually unchanged. Basically there are NO documents from the time of Jesus at all. Earlier stuff is hinted at and there is no way that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses - look at the differences between them (and the errors - when was the census?). From about 2nd Century CE you have an attempt to ground Jesus in history and pretty much everything dates from about then. The absolute earliest anything was written down was at least 30 to 40 years after Jesus was supposed to have died - a good generation or two in those days. The Pauline letters are a bit odd as they make no reference to details of Jesus that would give a dating to his life and anyway Paul never met Jesus, all his writings are from visions. If you are interested there is loads more but I won't bore you! Take a look at the articles and get used arguments that go along the lines of "well loads of scholars say so therefore it must be true" and you find out they are all from bible colleges. I look forward to working with you - again welcome to wikipedia! Sophia 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I appreciate you don't know the history of the article and so the bugbear which is "correlation-isn't-causation"; my aim was to help you understand my reaction to your post. I'm well aware it's fundamental to science, and even know the standard funny stories explaining why (number of catholic priests and the price of gin in the USA, and one about hurricanes, if I recall).
The problem with your changes to the Tobacco smoking article were nothing to do with those, though - they were that I can't find the data in the report you've cited to support the claims you're trying to back up. This, too, is fundamental to science, and pretty critical to scientific analysis... Nmg20 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with your opinion regarding the questionable use of an undergraduate student's blog as an 'expert' source for the Darwinius entry. I have not had much luck in getting the questionable source removed, so instead, I'm just trying to make the credentials of the blogger made explicit. However, Dave Souza is not amenable to this compromise. Might you lend your opinion in the talk page? Thanks. 130.13.170.197 ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, thanks for your efforts at Darwinius, and for lending a rational mind to the discussion. Your arguments were very compelling; were it not for the obvious ownership issue going on at Darwinius, they would have made quite a bit of headway. I'm also impressed that you were able to maintain your cool despite said ownership --- something I myself was not able to do. 130.13.179.166 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
So I noticed you are existentialist. You should read/edit the wiki page I just created for The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer. - Tesseract2 ( talk) 04:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So I read on the Nonlocality page that both entanglement and the absence of local hidden variables have been empirically demonstrated. De Broglie-Bohm allows for each of these, but as the Nonlocality page add: "A more general nonlocality beyond quantum entanglement —retaining compatibility with relativity— is an active field of theoretical investigation and has yet to be observed." My question is: in the meantime, what views provide more complete explanations? I have heard of the Copenhagen interpretation (which is supposedly much less popular these days). I have also hear of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, although it is so incongruent to the way I understand my universe that I prefer to wait for Bohm (multiple universes breaking off at each quantum event???). - Tesseract2 ( talk) 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Sarah Palin, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
Kelly
hi!
21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)