User talk:Jimjohnson2222

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 18:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! France 3470   ( talk ) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail
I prefer to keep Wikipedia-related communications "on-Wiki". We do not accept article submissions by e-mail. I suggest that you ask for help either at the Tea House or on the article's talk page (Talk:Observable universe), or at the talk page of the astronomy WikiProject. --ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yyou can paste it to talk:Observable universe/workpage, where work usually goes on Wikipedia articles (it will be easier to maintain attribution as well, if you post it there) . At the very start of the page, please add:


 * before you paste your material. And after your paste, add


 * after which, you can describe what you'd like done with the preceding section of posted material.
 * -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Observable universe
I reverted your additions to the Observable universe article, because the information was not presented in an encyclopedic manner. Perhaps, if you listed your facts, sources and issues with the article as it stands, I can incorporate them for you.  Serendi pod ous  20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why change Matter Content and Mass? The revised version, corrects all these inconsistencies. Appreciate your thoughts. Jim Johnson 02:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A. Matter Content has the following issues/inconsistencies:
 * 1. In method 1, the two methods are calculating mass which is the same objective as the Mass 	section. Thus is redundant and confusing. Once mass is estimated the number of atoms is straightforward.
 * 2. In method 1, the value of the Hubble constant and the values ordinary matter are outdated	(WAMP rather than ESA).
 * 3. In method 2, the mass of an average star is wrong, two times too large.
 * 4. In method 2, the reference to number of galaxies is outdated by NASA's current estimates.
 * B. Mass has the following issues/inconsistencies:
 * 1. Introduction is confusing because of mass energy reference and "space time curvature' which does not belong in section.
 * 2. Critical density section is based on outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA).
 * The reference on the fraction of stars is outdated, the best estimate in the Cosmic Energy Inventory article.
 * Using both the visible and observable volumes is confusing and not relevant.
 * The section uses results from method 1 which is duplication.
 * 3. The Stellar density section uses an obscure reference on density rather than the NASA recent references. It does not correct for the Hubble distance (comoving radius). It also uses the wrong mass for an average star and outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA).
 * 4. The Steady-state section uses an outdated value for Hubble constant and does not correct for a comoving radius.


 * First I should say, please forgive any obvious misapprehensions. I am not a cosmologist or even a scientist. With that out of the way:


 * A1. I do not see the doubling up as redundant; rather it shows the same conclusion through multiple lines of evidence
 * A2: Provide a source, and it can be reworked.
 * A3: First of all, a factor of two is not a very large difference in astronomical terms. Secondly, it depends how you define "average" (obviously, the "average mass" of a star listed in the article is a solar mass, and the Sun is middle-sized, even if it is relatively rare in stellar terms). Finally, the information is sourced. You need to provide your own source to counter it.
 * A4: Again, if you have a source, list it.
 * B1: Why? It is raising important caveats that the mass of the universe should include its energy, and that energy is involved in the curvature of spacetime. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 * B2: Again, provide a source and it can be included. I'm not sure what you mean by "visible and observable volumes". Surely those are the same? And it isn't duplication if you are trying to determine a separate result.
 * B3: again these can be fixed using the appropriate sources, rather than completely rewriting the section
 * B4: Since the steady-state theory is debunked anyway, does it really matter if it doesn't use up to date figures? Personally I don't think it needs to be in the article.  Serendi pod ous  07:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your detail review of my proposal. I am new to the process and format of updating Wikipedia. I know we can find a mutually agreeable improved revision. Address your specific comments:
 * A1. "I do not see the doubling up as redundant; rather it shows the same conclusion through multiple lines of evidence."

The point is having a focused objective for the first section - an estimate of the number of atoms. Why try to verify the amount of mass in two sections?
 * A2. All updated sources were in the revision:" 43. ^Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma (First Mariner books, New York, 2006), pp. 43. 44. ^ Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds (Anchor Books, New York,2006), pp.385. 45. ^ Bernard F. Schutz (2003). Gravity from the ground up. Cambridge University Press. pp. 361–. ISBN 978-0-521-45506-0. Retrieved 1 May 2011. 46. ^ "Astronomers count the stars". BBC News. July 22, 2003. Retrieved 2006-07-18. 47. ^ "trillions-of-earths-could-be-orbiting-300-sextillion-stars" 48. ^ van Dokkum, Pieter G.; Charlie Conroy (2010). "A substantial population of low-mass stars in luminous elliptical galaxies". Nature 468 (7326): 940–942. arXiv:1009.5992. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..940V. doi:10.1038/nature09578. . 49. ^ "How many stars?" 50. ^ NASA, Hubble News Release STSci - 2004-7. 51. ^ James R Johnson, Comprehending the Cosmos, a Macro view of the Universe, 2nd Edition, April 2013, pp. 36,ISBN 1477649697. 52. ^ NASA, Hubble News Release STSci - 20012-37. 53. ^ James R Johnson, Comprehending the Cosmos, a Macro view of the Universe, 2nd Edition, April 2013, pp. 34,ISBN 1477649697. 54. ^ Fukugita, Masataka, Peebles, P. J. E., "The Cosmic Energy Inventory", Astro Physics Review 18 Aug 2004. 55. ^ Helge Kragh (1999-02-22). Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe. Princeton University Press. p. 212, Chapter 5. ISBN 0-691-00546-X. 56. Valevx,Dimitar, Estimation of the total mass and energy of the universe, arXiv:1004.1035v [physics. gen-ph] 7 Apr 2010, pp. 4."
 * A3. A factor of two may not be too significant but it is wrong! See reference list.
 * A4. See ref.
 * B1." Why? It is raising important caveats that the mass of the universe should include its energy, and that energy is involved in the curvature of spacetime. Seems pretty straightforward to me."

Although true, it is in another Wikipedia section -Energy and Mass.
 * B2. "Again, provide a source and it can be included".

See ref. " I'm not sure what you mean by "visible and observable volumes". Surely those are the same? And it isn't duplication if you are trying to determine a separate result" This is exactly my point, the original uses both which is unnecessary since they are so close. I use the Wikipedia comoving radius for observable universe.
 * B4. " Since the steady-state theory is debunked anyway, does it really matter if it doesn't use up to date figures? Personally I don't think it needs to be in the article "

Although the Steady-state theory is false, the equation for mass is not. See my ref. In summary, I think my revision is much improved over the current and hope you agree. I can easily remove the rhetorical questions if they are not appropriate. Again, thanks for the feedback. Jim Johnson 15:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are primarily popular science books and news releases. On Wikipedia, scientific articles are preferred.  Serendi pod ous  21:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to help or be an obstacle? I reused 6 of the original references although 2 were "news" and I debated using them.

The eight added were: 1 from Astro-physics journal, 2 books from Physicist (one, Paul Davies, is used in the previous section!), 2 NASA Releases which are as reliable as anything, 1 arXiv article, and 2 from my recent book.
 * If you are not going to acknowledge my logic and give this a chance, can you refer this to another editor? Jim Johnson 21:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You want to radically redraft an already established article on a very important topic. So yes, my job right now is to slow you down. These things take time. I would prefer it if I was not currently the only one dealing with this, because I'm not interested in being "the Jerk". So I think I'm going to move this conversation to the article's talk page.  Serendi pod ous  05:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mass of Universe concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mass of Universe, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mass of Universe


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mass of Universe, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is a rejected submission at Articles for creation, and it has not been edited in over a year. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

 * 1) Thanks for responding. You recommend a logical approach. I previously missed Someguy1221's response on the Notice board but have now responded.Jim Johnson 15:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROO, WP:REFSPAM
Hello, I'm Jytdog. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Jytdog, I am not promoting anything but ideas and research that expand or clarify the Wiki information! I have done extensive research in each of the topics based on reliable sources. The benefit to Wiki is the analysis and organization of the material which would aid anyone else thinking about the same issues. My specific comments. 1, How does inserting the Scott article promote me? It is relevant and should remain. 2, I used Talk page prior to making any changes, left proposal for a week. 3. Note support for first change: The removal of the James R Johnson paper citation seems a little premature. ISPCJournals does not seem to be on Beall's List. The paper didn't look half bad and even contained a reference to another paper I hadn't known of before. Is it right that the citation was so quickly removed? It is not obviously pseudoscience. 96.237.136.210 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC) I summary, I carefully thought about each addition and think each adds value as a reference. Please defend your deletions. Jim Johnson Jim Johnson 12:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. --  Dane talk  05:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Closed DRN
Hello!

I have closed the dispute. Please ensure to read WP:RFC before opening your request for comment. If you need assistance in this or would like it written by a third party, let me know. The key is to ensure you ask the question in a way that does not favor either side so that you get impartial comments. Thanks! --  Dane talk  02:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please look at Multiverse Talk page to see if it is correct. If not could you correct. Thanks,Jim Johnson Jim Johnson 19:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This was not correct. However it looks like  is going to correct and propose one so I shall wait and see if further assistance is needed on that. --  Dane  talk  04:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)