User talk:AaronEmi

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Black hole information paradox, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Black hole information paradox. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Black hole information paradox
You wouldn't mind argumenting your revert to "You wouldn't mind argumenting your revert to Black hole information paradox", would you? --AaronEmi (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? I have no idea what you just said. Specifically, I'm not sure what "argumenting" means here.
 * In any case, your edit was reverted because it was commentary, and wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic. If you think that part should be changed or removed for whatever reason, say so on the talk page of the article. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh?? Any argument about being "non-intuitive" does fit any discussion about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics contracdicts intuitive ways of thinking about our surrourdings in any number of ways. Therefore: Quantum mechanis is by no means appropriate to talk about anything being a disadvantage just because classifiying it as "non-intuitive", since quantum mechanics is non-intuitive quasi "by design". Therefore I would sincerely suggest to keep my remarks in the artcle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronEmi (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're talking about. But what you're adding is commentary, and non neutral, so to speak -- see WP:NPOV. If you think the bullet point should be removed because it makes little sense, that would be the right sort of thing to do -- and I kind of agree with you. But a comment like that is an opinion, and not the sort of thing you'd see in a paper encyclopedia, and thus isn't the sort of thing we want in Wikipedia. Understand? Gscshoyru (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of. I think I'll get rid rid of this bullet-point. AaronEmi (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done as discussed. --AaronEmi (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Goody. Of course now the parallel structure of the article is off, and I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to say what might be a different disadvantage of that theory. If you know, I'd ask that you add one -- if not, then leave it as-is. I'm sure someone who understands enough will come around and fix it up. Thanks for understanding! Gscshoyru (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)