User talk:JerryOrr

Welcome to my talk page! I like to keep two-way conversations readable, so if a conversation starts here, I will reply here; if I post a message on your talk page, please reply there (I'll be watching). And be sure to sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end!
Start a new talk topic.

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.

This user's time zone is UTC-4.

Search user languages

Before the Big Bang

From the Big Bang article you may have read that there is no model before the Planck Epoch, that is to say nobody really knows what happened before this age of the universe. There are plenty of self-consistent theories that are possible explanations (including Hartle-Hawking initial state, string theory, and branes), but these ideas have never been subject to observable falsification.

As to the question of whether this permits an intelligent designer, this depends on whether you think that a first cause is permitted. There are those Christian apologists (such as William Lane Craig) who seem to think that a first cause is required. We know this is false. A first cause may exist, or it may be some other kind of universe where there is no first cause at all.

The issue with intelligent design is that those advocating it claim that there is absolute evidence for the intelligent designer. This is an untenable situation. The absolute best we can do with respect to that supposition is say that there is a lack of evidence one way or the other. This is the classic God of the gaps scenario. We just don't know so you are allowed to have whatever contrived idea you wish to impose provided it doesn't conflict with any observations. Recall, however, that every time before someone bet on the God of the gaps it was discovered later that there were natural explanations that didn't require deity (e.g. lightning). This is a cautionary tale, but it isn't preemptory. Belief in an intelligent designer at the ab initio point is permitted but it certainly isn't required and there is no evidence for or against such a belief.

Hope this answers your question. --ScienceApologist 13:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems rather impossible to establish a "beginning" that appears from nothing, as there is no comparable model (that I know of) in our universe; everything is composed from, evolved from, or designed by something else. The universe itself (or the intelligent designer, if you follow that theory) seems to be the only exception.

This isn't quite correct. Ex nihilo creation does occur in our universe, for example in pair production seen in quantum mechanics. The vacuum (our best definition of "nothing") acutally has a vacuum energy density associated with it that allows for particles to effectively quantum tunnel from "nothingness". There are versions of the origin of the universe which involve it quantum tunneling into existence that are explainable using very basic extensions of GR and QM. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting... but if I'm understanding the situation you described correctly, that doesn't seem to me to be exactly Ex nihilo. Vacuum energy, while not matter, is still something. It had to come from somewhere, didn't it? If I'm remembering my physics correctly, there is a constant amount of matter and energy (combined) in the universe; energy may turn into matter, and vice versa, but matter and energy are never created or destroyed. I'm not real familiar with vacuum energy, so maybe that's not part of the equation, but it still seems to me like the vacuum energy had to come from somewhere.

This is a fascinating discussion (for me at least). I hope I'm not bothering you with these questions; I realize you're probably not here for the purpose of educating users in quantum physics. If I'm getting on your nerves, by all means let me know! JerryOrr 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you claim that the "vacuum energy" is still "something", then you're going to have to explain what "nothing" is. In short, we have no way of describing space without including vacuum energy. The closest thing we have to a definition of "nothing" is a vacuum. In some sense, the conservation of energy (which is what you are referring to in your idealization of a constant amount of matter and energy) is not valid for these quantum mechanical events due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There are those who argue that there is a version of the uncertainty principle that allows for the existence of the universe rather than the existence of "nothing". Of course, these issues are not worked out, but it seems clear that there are versions of theorertical cosmogony which allow for a "comparable model" where things "come into being" without being "composed from, evolved from, or designed by something else". --ScienceApologist 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thief in garden image

I'll take your recommendation into account regarding future uploads. In fact I thought the image was quite small for a 1024*768... Besides, I saw it loading almost instantly in the Tronica page and also rather quickly in the image page itself, so I just thought it was OK. Maybe it's because of the metadata from my camera. I had no idea I was uploading that too! Thanx, anyway --Doppelgangland 09:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Blessed Are the Barren

Jerry, thanks for tracking down the source book Blessed Are the Barren on the Margaret Sanger article. I pored over their web page trying to find the author and/or source without any luck - I should have looked harder! MFNickster 23:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was bugging me for a while, too. I searched all over the place, but every site with the article just had the same canned statement that it came from the "January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine"; no place even mentioned the author. I actually found the site for Citizen's Magazine, but their archives didn't go back that far. Finally, I got fed up and emailed family.org (the parent site for Citizen's Magazine), and they provided me with the information. A lot of work just to find a citation, but I'm anal like that, especially on the Sanger article ;-) --JerryOrr 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Russia vs Soviet Union

Thanks for the copyediting you did on the Bill Haywood article... I really need someone looking at that article besides myself! I noticed you changed Russia to Soviet Union in a couple places. I had actually changed them from Soviet Union to Russia originally, because I believe that at the time Haywood went there, it was still Russia. Haywood went there in 1921, and according to the Soviet Union article, "the Soviet Union was a socialist state that existed from 1922 — 1991". Of course, he wasn't there long before the Soviet Union officially came into being, but that was my motivation.

So, having said that... do you still think it should be Soviet Union? It matters little to me either way, I just want to get the article accurate. --JerryOrr 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. If he fled in '21, Russia is more correct on where he fled to. Probably should be accompanied by an HTML comment pointing out that it wasn't the Soviet Union until '22. I had thought it was '20, and didn't check. - Jmabel | Talk 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to Russia, and added the HTML comment as you suggested. Thanks for the input! --JerryOrr 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Organized Labour

Hi Jerry, I saw your name on the list a couple weeks ago, and meant to stop by and say welcome. So - a little late, but welcome to the project. You've done a pile of work on Bill Haywood, and it looks great. (BTW, the WP:CSB is a good part of what got me interested in the area as well.) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedia could always use more info on organized labor, and I have plenty to learn about it, so it works out both ways. I'm looking forward to contributing more. --JerryOrr 11:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, are you still interested in a new stub for labour disputes? I just put a list of 30 up on the project page. Bookandcoffee 00:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, sorry if I dragged you into anything here. I'll dig up the links to the last discussion so you can make up your own mind about the stub thing. cheers. Bookandcoffee 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive20#WikiProject Organized Labour

Heh, no problem... as long as they don't expect me to rename all those templates and recategorize all the articles, it doesn't much matter to me what they're named. I just want to get my labor dispute stub. Thanks for your help in this! --JerryOrr 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I just saw your fancy new {{labor-dispute-stub}} at London Dock Strike of 1889. :) Good work. --Bookandcoffee 10:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I hope the format is alright. Feel free to alter it if you can make it better. And thanks again for putting together that list of pages... it made getting it approved a lot easier! --JerryOrr 11:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you involved with real labour unions or sham-ass business unions(that is any union that's not the IWW)? Zeelog1

McMartin Preschool Trial

You wrote: were ALL the allegations bizarre? do you have a source for that?

I am not the person you were questioning, but I do have an answer. The answer is yes, in no uncertain terms. The best source of information about this is the book "The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin Preschool Trial"" (Paperback) by Paul Eberle, Shirley Eberle. I've read it and is one of the most informative sources of information about the history of the McMartin witch hunt. There are also some sites on the web you can fin using Yahoo or Google. Hope this helps. -- Jason Palpatine 01:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Crowscream

To be honest, yes it is worth it. i put a lot of love and time into that article. its about a cause i believe in and a individual who i deeply respect. i dont know much about you, but i am pritty sure you have some very important things in your life you care about, family, friends and work. if you think i am overreacting, imagine someone taking away the picture with your face on it that says Worker of the Month away from the wall because ...supossedly... you keep kissing up to the boss.

i have no problem with rewriting the articel to make it, correct and looking less like we are trying to advertise. what we are doing to some degree, not like a organisation but more in the sense of ´´kids who like to write``. if you or anyone else wants to rewrite the article, make a list of names, and i will look up other luciferians too help use so we have a well balanced team of writers. Cro..Scream

London matchgirls strike

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for your kind words.

I tend to use the Havard reference system so let me know if I've left anything out. I've used two references: The Shocking History of Phosphorus. A Biography of the Devil's Element by John Emsley, Published by Macmillan Press, 2000, ISBN 0 333 76638 5. The other one is the book I've quoted in Albright and Wilson. I don't have this book at present, its at the bookbinders for repair but I can get the ISBN in about 10 days time when it comes back.

Emsley has quite some, secondary, detail on the strike, but it is spread throughout Chapter 4. Threlfall gives Bryant and May's side of the story, since Bryant and May, Albright and Wilson and Swedish Match go back together to 1855, or thereabouts.

Best regards, Phil. Pyrotec 17:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanded the article some more and put in most of the references, but I need your help to convert them; it probably needs some Copyedit-ing. I'll do the rest early next month once I have all the source materials. Pyrotec

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article London matchgirls strike of 1888, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Johnny

Just wanted to say that I loved Yucca Mountain Johnny -- I hadn't run across that one yet! Nothing like a poorly drawn and generic looking miner to inspire kids to take a reasonable view on nuclear waste! I added a picture of him and put it up for DYK, just FYI. --Fastfission 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I saw it in Newsweek, and I was suprised to find nobody had added it yet! I got a kick out if it as well. Thanks for adding the pic, too... I couldn't find a complete image of Johnny, and I didn't feel like piecing together multiple images off the DOE site to make it (which is what I assume you did).

I actually did put it up for DYK already, under the May 31 section. We worded our blurbs differently, but as long as it gets up there, I think some people will find it interesting. --JerryOrr 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yucca Mountain Johnny, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 12:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The DYK factoids should be simple to draw in readers. I think the mere fact that a cartoon character was created to explain nuclear waste to children is of enough interest to pull in readers, without having to add all sorts of other bits that will only detract. No, I don't work for Big Tobacco or Big Nuclear. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 15:46

Beer poll

Hi! Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [1] SilkTork 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

As an editor of the article "Jhonen Vasquez", you are invited to a Request for Comment (as suggested by Admin Luna Santin). Please see: Talk:Jhonen Vasquez#Request for Comment: Book format. -- Tenebrae 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln University, PA

The information required to substantiate the removal of the "citation needed" in the Lincoln University article are found in the Book "Education For Freedom, A History of Lincoln University, Pennsylvania" by Horace Mann Bond, Copyright 1976 by Lincoln University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania, printed bt Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. The second reference used in the article was the Lincoln University of Pennsylvania, Alumni Directory 2004, Bernard C. Harris Publishing Company, Inc., 2003, Purchase New York CWAH-W123-1-8.8VA. All inquiries to the Bernard Harris Publishing Company are reached through telephone(800)877-6554 and/or email: customer service@bcharrispub.com.

The "State Related" citation is keeping in accordance with the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University wikipedia articles. I would suggest you tag the Temple and Pittsburgh articles also if you're not going to remove the Lincoln tag.

Sorry the Lincoln University article "sounded" too much like an advertisement, but you should check out the Howard, Princeton , Yale, Duke and a few other universities on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njlincolnlion (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

There are plenty of poor-quality articles on Wikipedia, and pointing them out does not pardon a given article from its own shortcomings. If inspiration strikes me, I will give the same treatment to the pages you mentioned. For now, Lincoln University has drawn my attention, and I intend to make sure that it is encyclopedic. Lincoln University has its own web site, and it does a perfectly good job of advertising; it does not need Wikipedia's help. --JerryOrr 16:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Editting Bill Haywood

Hi Jerry!

Have started a temporary discussion here (near bottom):

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour

About this:

Bill Haywood

(because hadn't gotten feedback at Talk:Bill Haywood )

Should have read your page first, but maybe there will be interesting input from others.

best wishes, Richard Myers 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar article review

I have a real problem in providing citations for this article because the most comprehensive and authorative sources are actually from my books-is it appropriate to quote from and use my own material? Bzuk 13:21 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I think you probably meant to direct this comment to MLilburne, as he did the original review of the article. My comment was on the lack of pictures. --JerryOrr 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for you nice comments about Mark Kellogg (reporter) and for promoting the article to good article status. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anastas Mikoyan

Hey Jerry, thanks for reviewing Mikoyan. I think I completed all your suggestions in order for the article to be promoted to GA. Could you check it out if I missed anything? Thanks again - Fedayee 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! --JerryOrr 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bolli Bollison

I have made the appropriate changes as you requested. Would you consider this now to be of Good Article standard? Thanks. --Grimhelm 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it! :D --Grimhelm 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:JerryOrr

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:JerryOrr --JerryOrr 12:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Labor Wars

Hi Jerry! I am pretty much finished with the writing part of Colorado Labor Wars, and would enjoy feedback/criticism.

thanks! Richard Myers 10:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Dear JerryOr,

It would be more than welcome - if you could find some time in order to review the Ante Starčević biography - which I nominated as a GA.

Best regards,

--BarryMar 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kato_Shidzue_headshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kato_Shidzue_headshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Minnetonka_queen.jpeg

I have tagged Image:Minnetonka_queen.jpeg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABC International School logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:ABC International School logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, JerryOrr. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conodoguinet Creek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mechanicsburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JerryOrr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)