User talk:Lormaccone



Hello, Lormaccone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Edits on Schrödinger's cat
The problem with your edits is that they are clearly your own interpretation, they do not come from the sources. This makes them original research, which is explicitly forbidden. See WP:OR. I fully believe your qualifications, but I'd like to emphasize that they are not relevant here. Wikipedia is meant to summarize what is written in reliable, secondary sources. It is not meant for scientists to come here and write their thoughts on the subject, no matter how eminent they are. If zombie Einstein showed up here and started editing articles on GR he would be shown the door. What matters for Wikipedia is what the community thinks about GR, not what Einstein thinks about GR.

As for your edits, I won't revert them anymore; instead I will start a topic in the article's talk page to let other editors chime in. Tercer (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Fine, then I'll publish a paper with these ideas. If they're original as you claim (Who'd have thought?!?), then I can add this part citing my own paper. If they're not original and the referees point out to me a reference, then I'll add this part since it's not original research. In any case, I'll be back. Bye,
 * Lorenzo Lorenzo Maccone (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're particularly original, seems like yet another rehash of Copenhagen. What matters is they are not in any source. In any case, you shouldn't cite your own work in Wikipedia. See WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE. Tercer (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome environment you created to a potential very expert contributor (irony).
 * It's certainly not a rehash of Copenhagen, at least the version of Copenhagen that's on that page. That's why I felt (I feel) it's necessary to add that version of the explanation, which I find would be very useful to understand the cat paradox. And I speak as an expert, since I've given many general public talks over the last years on the Schroedinger cat, using that same approach. The fact it's not on the wikipedia page is a glaring omission, just because it's a straightforward extension of textbook Copenhagen, as you (finally) admit, after having initially said it was "original research". Ah.
 * Anyhow, I had heard that the wikipedia editor environment is a completely toxic cult, and now I have experienced it. Thanks, that was instructive. Lorenzo Maccone (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome to contribute if you are willing to follow Wikipedia's policies. If you're not, then you should indeed stay away. Tercer (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am clearly NOT welcome to contribute.
 * Which policies didn't I follow? You asked for references and I provided some. If you believe that they're not appropriate, that's your own opinion. You then said it's my own "original research", but then you backtracked and said that it's just a rehash of Copenhagen (with which I agree 100%). There is nothing conceptually wrong in what I wrote (Or do you disagree? What is it?) I, an expert in the field, believe it's an important addition and useful to understand the cat paradox. Yet, you deleted my additions basically immediately. (I wonder, don't you have anything more constructive to do?)
 * So, tell me, exactly which policies didn't I follow? Lorenzo Maccone (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the informal meaning of "original research" with the precise meaning it has in Wikipedia policy. In Wikipedia policy "original research" is anything that's not supported by a source. Which is the case of your edit. In the informal meaning, "original research" is almost always used as a compliment, for some piece of research that's not a mere rehashing of what we already know. Which is not the case for your edit. Please see Talk:Schrödinger's cat, where another editor agreed with my point of view about your edit. Tercer (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that my contribution is not supported by the provided sources is just your personal opinion (and it's mistaken).
 * It's true that the sources do not contain the moniker "Complementarity interpretation", but that's just a stupid name I came up with. It is necessary in the context of the wiki page to differentiate it from the other interpretations. Of course you won't find it in the sources provided, where a SINGLE interpretation is presented, so it's unnecessary to provide it with a name. If you want to change the name, please propose a better one. I don't care about the name in the least (as long as it's not confusing).
 * As for the fact that my "original research" is just a rehash of Copenhagen (your words) then it goes on to show that it IS supported by the sources, whatever sources contain Copenhagen (i.e. almost all QM textbooks).
 * So, again, which wikipedia policies didn't I follow? Lorenzo Maccone (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already explained patiently why you're violating WP:OR. If you don't want to listen it's not my problem. Tercer (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)