User talk:Dstarr147

Sorry, this was my first edit. I am concerned that the comment at the beginning of the article would discourage people from investigating the topic further. There are references in the article citing Pauli, Weyl, Wigner, Schroedinger and Eddington's beliefs in this area. I do nopt dispute that QM has been misapplied and misunderstood. However there are real aspect of mysticism (the technical term, not the popular term) that have potential to help understand this difficult topic - particularly as it relates to consciousness. I ask that the editorial comment be deleted or at least not be in the first paragraph. ____


 * If you want to discuss this the best place is the talk page of the article, that is Talk:Quantum mysticism. I don't think you have much chance of persuading editors to change the article as you want, given the editors that have undone your changes so far, but if you want to discuss it and see if a compromise can be found then the talk page is the place.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't give up. Go to Talk:Quantum mysticism and discuss. The intro is too short, so it makes sense to add text rather than delete. I think the consensus is that it is pseudoscience, but it would make sense to also note the prominent physicists that have supported the idea. Bhny (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Your recent editing history at Quantum mysticism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)