User talk:JimWae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User:JimWae : Talk to me! | Check on my contributions!| Check my edit count!| Email Me!
Editor - rhodium star III.jpg This editor is a Senior Editor III
and is entitled to display this Platinum
Editor Star
.
Master editor 2.png


  • If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
  • If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.
  • If appropriate, I will move talk from here to relevant article talk page, so that everyone can share in the discussion.

Archives[edit]

Defender of Wikipedia[edit]

For outstanding efforts in defending Wikipedia from vandalism, in particular the JFK article, I award you the Defender of Wiki Barnstar -Husnock

--Hey, thank you very much, Husnock. I have now noticed vandalism on several articles that seems to be part of a class assignment gone astray --JimWae 19:39, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

history articles on wikipedia?[edit]

Hello Jim, I'm an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including the writing of history on Wikipedia. We'd like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu


Sounds interesting - I am going to be very busy the next month - and cannot plan exact times to chat - so let's start with e-mails --JimWae 18:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Hi Jim, if you're more available now, I'm still very interested in speaking with you about your work on Wikipedia. Feel free to drop me an email at jfragasz_at_gmu_dot_edu. - Joan, 8/22/05


re: history articles on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Jim, if you'd like to email me when you have some time I'm still very interested in speaking with you. Thanks, Joan Fragaszy. jfragasz at gmu dot edu


September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Examination of public videos reveals evidence of substantially different facts. Consider the contents of this video:* New Video Documentary of WTC Collapse As you watch, note particularly the differences in fact between this video and the wikipedia article, that are verifiable by you by reviewing the sources yourself (ie renting, buying or downloading). We are being lied to. Maybe we want to believe the lies because the truth implies intent from within. -unsigned by anon IP


Wikipedia 10[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JimWae. You have new messages at Template talk:Personal beliefs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JimWae. You have new messages at Template talk:Personal beliefs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TUSC token 1f1747f8c6381b915c04cb28ced74777[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Existentialism[edit]

Thank you for your work on the existentialism article. After going through the definition issue for the "libertarianism" and "anarchism" pages, I understand how nerve-wracking establishing a definition for a term is when there's never been much general agreement on what the hell it actually means. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 April 2012

LED lamps[edit]

Before starting another editwar, we should discuss the point "Comparison to other lighting technologies". Did you own the G7 Power LED Light Bulb, 900 Lumen, Warm White, 9 Watt? This lamp is bad, it has an CRI of <75 in real. I have tested over 40 different LED-Lamps from all known brands (Pilips, Osram, Toshiba, Samsung, LG, Ledon, Megaman, Bioledex...) and know their quality. In my opinion the referenced lamps should be well known, proved models who are really representive for the possible quality of the LED technology. So why not use the winner of the US Department of Energy's L-Prize, holder of the EPA ENERGY STAR ? This lamp has moren REAL lumen, an good CRI and costs the same? In my opinion, we should change back the LED-Lamp to the Philips Ambient 12.5W.

Jesus FAC[edit]

Hey do you think the Jesus article is ready for FAC? Since you made the most edits to the article, I might need your permission.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had been extended the same courtesy of notification before the 8-yr consensus on era notation was dispatched by a not-well-attended STRAW vote. I find the article still has other NPOV issues. For a start:
  • The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, who is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.[28] A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural.[28]
    • The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly. (because also as polytheistic, incomprehensible, ...)
  • Prior to the Enlightenment, the gospels were usually regarded as accurate historical accounts, but since then skeptics have emerged who question the reliability of the gospels and presuppose a distinction between the Jesus described in the gospels and the Jesus of history.[220]
    • Prior to the Enlightenment, the gospels were usually regarded as accurate historical accounts, but since then skeptics have emerged who question the reliability of the gospels and draw a distinction between the Jesus described in the gospels and the Jesus of history.
--JimWae (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

NYC GA status and editor Aircorn's editing skills[edit]

Jim, please feel free to add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New York City. I noted your comment in the "Lead" section of the NYC Talk page. I believe delisting by a relatively unskilled editor was outrageous. It's not that I believe that this article needs reaffirmation with GA status, especially when geopolitical shenanigans like this seem to be operative. However, it's simply the principle which bothers me. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Euler Diagram[edit]

So you admit, in your response to me, that the Euler Diagram suffers the fallacy of equivalence. You admit that part of it uses agnostic as an adjective and then reinstate this fallacy after admitting it suffers an equivalence issue. What exactly, in your mind, justifies the use of a fallacy? Because I can assure you, it will not be logical. That's why they are called fallacies.


Where does the diagram represent agnosticism? If the union is defined as agnostic atheist, then clearly, the adjective meaning is being used and the blue region becomes nonsense, because one can't simply be an adjective. The diagram was produced by atheists that don't believe agnosticism even exists, hence why it's not represented in the diagram. That's hardly neutral. The diagram may not explicitly say agnosticism doesn't exist, but it's clearly designed to imply that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIXVXII (talkcontribs) 06:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

But one can be AN agnostic, no? The old diagram was better & I have changed the caption --JimWae (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's not argue the intent of persons not present and/or unknown--JimWae (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Btw, what is the 3rd agnostic alternative to 1. believing in the existence of a deity, but not claiming to know such exists & 2. rejecting belief that any deity exists, but not claiming to know if any exist or not?--JimWae (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
If the unions were labelled atheistic agnostic & theistic agnostic, that would not imply none of atheism & theism & atheists & theists do not exist--JimWae (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. How can I take you serious when you revert to a previously problematic diagram. I shouldn't talk about people's motives when you insist upon displaying atheist propaganda? One cannot have an Euler diagram when the yellow region is agnostic the noun and the union is agnostic that adjective. That is obviously the fallacy of equivalence and the fallacy of ambiguity. You offer no logical reason why you continue to support these obvious fallacies. Having something isn't better than nothing when that something is fallacious. IIXVXII (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If the unions were labelled atheistic agnostic & theistic agnostic, that would not imply none of atheism & theism & atheists & theists do not exist----JimWae (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at the comments here --JimWae (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you name the people who made the diagram? On what basis do you determine their position? Actually the maker of the worse one identifies as agnostic.--JimWae (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Vulgar Euler[edit]

I like this one. It's humorous and gives explanations that common people can follow plus do you know of any persons that actively self-describe as gnostic theist (the theist position assumes gnostic), gnostic (usage there is commonly people that follow the Kabbalah) or gnostic atheist (they are Atheists, damn it!)? Alatari (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Question on agnostic[edit]

Let's assume the situation that some deity exists that may provide knowledge of it's existence. Say Santa Claus. What is the difference between the agnostic that has never heard of this Santa Claus and has no knowledge and an agnostic that claims (believes?) no knowledge can be gained about Santa Claus. Are they both agnostic or does the article provide a more descriptive term for the two varieties? Isn't this the heart of the debate over the definition? Alatari (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All definitions of agnosticism say it is a view or position. As such it has to be explicit/conscious - one has to have some notion of what being (or concept) is being proposed in order to claim the truth value of statements about its existence is/are unknown or unknowable. No source I have ever seen calls infants agnostics - infants do not make intellectual claims about anything. Btw, hardly anyone would agree infants are atheists either. The absence definition of atheism has serious problems - it leads not only to unusual categorizations but even to absurdities.--JimWae (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT[edit]

I noticed that you made a change to reference dates on the Religion in Canada article citing WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT as reasons. None of those guidelines/MoSes relate to references but body copy. And certainly, WP:STRONGNAT does not apply to restoring the ISO 8601 date format to a Canadian article, let alone the others you're applying it to. It simply states "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable", and it's not particularly acceptable when a full date is an option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

the top of the edit page gives the edit for which dateret applies--JimWae (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
And since I applied it you're treading on dangerous ground. You need to discuss at the article now or it will be reverted. See WP:BRD Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Look at the 2nd line: < !-- keep yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates (and archivedates) per 2009-MAR-21 edit--> You have not made a case for your change to MDY --JimWae (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Koreatown, Manhattan[edit]

Hello JimWae, would you mind answering "Two Questions" on the Talk:Koreatown, Manhattan page? I'm just curious what editors think. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Jesus[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Jesus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus (7–2 BC to 30–33 AD) is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament. Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return. The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Divine Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural. In Islam, Jesus is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year JimWae![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello JimWae:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


Template talk:Height[edit]

Given your previous involvement in the discussion at Template_talk:Height#Centimetres, I just thought I'd bring a closely related Request for Comment to your attention (as per Wikipedia:Canvassing).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Consistent Access Dates per MOSNUM[edit]

Hi JimWae. Recently you made an edit to Metrication in the United States changing citation access dates to a format like 2014-01-27. While I don't really have a problem with that, I'm confused with this change because I generated a few of the citations using the Wikipedia citation templates within the source editor. For the access dates, I clicked the "today" button and for one of the citations that had a date, I filled out the "month", "day", and "year" fields, which you condensed into a single "date" field. Thus I find it odd that the citations generated by the template were wrong and needed to be fixed.

It seems to me that either the citation templates aren't up to the current manual of style or the templates are right and you are misinterpreting the manual of style. Could you please look into this? -Thunderforge (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think pointing you to Template:Cite_web#Deprecated will best answer your question. Regards, --JimWae (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Hello Jim. The article Agnosticism has been promoted to GA Status. Now I have nominated the article for DYK too. I was a bit confused about the selection of hook, as the scope of the article is very wide. Anyway I have posted two hooks. I shall be grateful if you review the hooks, and if necessary propose an alternate hook. Faizan 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Agnosticism[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)