User talk:Jamenta

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four  ~  or by pressing or  in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Again, welcome! ```Buster Seven   Talk  08:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Quantum entanglement‎
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mihaiam (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:AN3#.5B.5BUser:.3CJamenta.5D.5D_reported_by_User:Mihaiam_.28Result:_.29. Thank you. —Mihaiam (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now at WP:AN3. At first glance you appear to be trying to force your version into the article against opposition by other editors. It is possible you could be blocked for edit warring. If you respond in the above thread and agree to wait for consensus before reverting again, you may be able to avoid sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling another editor an asshole doesn't improve your credibility. Please remove that comment from the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that valid questions I asked in regards to my citations were never answered by the contributor Mihaiam, who is the only person who has repeatedly removed my addition - and yet I am the one accused of having my version enforced - when it is Mihaiam repeatedly removing my contributions. The first sentence regarding the Copenhagen Interpretation was present before I made redactions to the article - and has also been repeatedly removed by Mihaiam - therefore it is not even my additions Mihaiam is insisting upon, it is his own version.  This is not consensus, it is Mihaiam insisting he be the only contributor.


 * I find it interesting that this first original sentence was removed by Mihaiam (that was not even my inclusion) along with the additional clause I included with solid citations and references (including links to other Wikipedia Pages with almost exact quotes) regarding the Von Neumann Interpretation - as an adjunct to the Copenhagen Intepretation - both of which are well established in Quantum Physics and is very much related to Quantum Entanglement. The two Interpretations included are among the most prominent interpretations of the Measurement problem at this time, and including them at the beginning of the discussion is clearly appropriate given that the Measurement problem by far is one of the most important scientific questions posed right now in QM - and has yet to be resolved in an important way (as one can see from the links I have provided.)  Mihaiam has refused to acknowledge this and I believe does not wish reference to the Von Neumann Interpretation because of a priori prejudice against the concept the conciousness of the observer as Von Neumann and more recent QM physicists such Henry Stapp, have posited.  Just because one might be prejudicial toward a given QM Interpretation does not mean however it cannot be mentioned in an article that discusses the processes of quantum physics as obviously Quantum Entanglement does.  The fact that there are a number Interpretations of the Measurement problem - makes it more appropriate that not just one Interpretation (i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation which was also excised by Mihiaim that was not my inclusion and was originally present months ago) - makes it appropriate that at least one additional Interpretation be included.  I simply augmented the original reference in the original text - to the inclusion of the alternate view provided by the Von Neumann Interpretation.  And the view that the conscious observer plays a significant role in the Measurement Problem is still an ongoing but very solid and appropriate stance that many quantum physicists.


 * Consensus means I also have a right to provide my contributions. Currently I am blocked out from editing so cannot excise at this time my reference to Mihiam being an asshole.  So what is next?  Please advice.  How does one enter fair arbitration in Wikipedia where someone looks at the references and citation I have made in good faith and an equitable decision is made - not just Mihaiam single-handedly - who has ignored my repeated requests to discuss why the references I provided are invalid?  Which IMO is not an attempt at achieving consensus in good faith (and yet I am being blamed here.)  Where can a decision be made that is not prejudicial - as I believe Mihiaim is - toward the valid text I have provided?  Thank You.  Jamenta (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, WP:CONSENSUS does not mean you have "a right to provide my contributions." Second, you engaged in personal attacks (calling other editors "abusive" and an "asshole"). As for what you can do if you want to change the article constructively and collaboratively, there are dispute resolution mechanisms available on Wikipedia to resolve content disputes if they can't be resolved civilly on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but abusive is when someone repeatedly removes your contribution and ignores your request for why they are doing it. Collaboratively means that one person not be completely ignored as my requests for further explanation were.  That is what I am calling abusive.  I provided solid references material in good faith and my small addition was constructive.  I have a feeling I am being set up here and this is absolutely unfair - almost dictatorial. Note: willful prejudice in science is as bad as fundamentalism in religion.  And that's what this is really about.  Jamenta (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, personal attacks, and refusing to collaborate, as you did at Quantum entanglement. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree upon two counts: edit warring (as my edits were repeatedly excised by another user Mihiaim) and the personal attack of calling him an asshole. Will refrain calling Mihiaim an asshole again.  However, I disagree with the conclusion you make that I failed to collaborate.  I asked repeatedly why my citations and links to other Wikipedia Webpages were inappropriate and received a few words back from Mihiaim who ignored my requests regarding citations/links entirely and simply continued to remove my contributions.  I have been made out to be a villain here and yet I provided a reasonable addition in good faith with solid references.  Jamenta (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many indications that you refused to collaborate. User:Tsirel appears to have disagreed with you. A couple of IPs disagreed with you. Yet, you make the following statement: "If you remove text without challenging the citations I will continue to reinsert the references to the Von Neumann and the Copenhagen Interpretations, since they are well known and solidly supported in the Quantum Physics community despite your unscientific prejudice toward them." That's not collaboration. It is discussion, but collaboration means that you continue to discuss until a consensus is reached. You don't unilaterally declare that other editors are wrong, you're right, and that's the end of the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One IP removed because I had not provided citations, which I did. There was no further challenge.  Therefore I did collaborate.  User:Tsirel did question my additions and I did respond to him several times - in the second section as well - there was no follow up by him. Two of my additions did stand because the references I cited were valid and have not been removed since.  However, it would appear my addition of the Von Neumann Interpretion became too much for Mihiaim's personal worldview - who has been the only user to repeatedly remove my additions - other than an anonymous IP source (who could have been Mihiaim himself who removed once without providing any collaborative reason.)  You are villifying me as if I did not respond or make appropriate changes - which I did in fact do.   I suspect you are not impartial to this process but probably are working with Mihiaim.  In any case, some of the edits that I did make have been retained and have removed the blatant original bias from the text.  I guess fighting fundamentalists is never easy.  (PS:  I am not a Palestinian, I am an American.)  Jamenta (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your suspicions of conspiracy, agenda, and fundamentalism (not even sure where that one came from) will only get you into more trouble. It's not worth my time to respond substantively to your latest comments, but consider yourself warned that if the behavior that led to your current block is repeated after the block expires, you may be blocked again without notice, and for a longer period of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes interesting how much like Mihiaim you selectively ignore my responses regarding my attempt to collaborate (as my points above you don't bother to respond too) and then threaten me further. It is disengenuous and bullying behavior.  And please spare me the disingenuous bullshit that you don't know Mihiaim. Jamenta (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Incivility warning
Jamenta, it is one of the core principles of Wikipedia that "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility". For this reason, some of your recent contributions, particularly this, are unacceptable. Please read and understand the civility page I have linked to before engaging in discussion, especially the recommendation "Try to make coherent and concise arguments rather than simply attacking others". MartinPoulter (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide warning to person who called me a Troll. Thank you.  Or has Wikipedia gone that down hill in outright prejudice and bias? Jamenta (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Frederic William Henry Myers. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * NPOV scholarship is when you insist on a skimpy essay on one of the most influential figures in Psychology and Psi research, and insist that the sentence he had sexual desires for mediums - remain in the essay? This is the level of Wikipedia editorial control?  Are you kidding me?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  What a crock of POV Wikipedia Editorial sponsored bullshit. Jamenta (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Jamenta. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The entry is here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Lucky Louie - put yourself on that list as well. Regards.   Jamenta (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for legal threats, edit warring, and personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)