User talk:Jim62sch

Ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat

I do not suffer fools gladly

<font|strong>The only chaos or disorder related to entropy is that which occurs in the minds of those who cannot understand it.

User:Jim62sch/archive1 User:Jim62sch/archive2 User:Jim62sch/archive3

User:Jim62sch/archive4 User:Jim62sch/archive5 User:Jim62sch/archive6

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Galicia

Ola, grazas pola mensaxe, non sei se entendín ben, na páxina de Stoni eu só mencionei o artigo sobre Abadín, Lugo, do que fixen unha versión moi simple a partir do artigo galego gl:Abadín, o meu inglés non me permite facer unha tradución completa, se ti queres facer unha tradución do artigo ou de calquera outro por min encantado. Aínda que a Wikipedia en galego ten relativamente poucos artigos e queda moito por facer, pouco a pouco penso que imos mellorando na súa calidade, claro que iso o teñen que dicir o que nos visitan, saúdos dende Galicia.--Rocastelo 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation

Hi. I see you speak Portuguese. I wonder if you could help me with a quick translation? The text is at User:Sannse/Sandbox. Many thanks for any help you can give -- sannse (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I'm really sorry - I edited my sandbox while logged out to add the text I needed in Portuguese. Someone thought it was vandalism and reverted to some old random text I had there. It's the very short letter that I need help with, and not the stuff about dogs. I'm really sorry for the confusion and what must have seemed like a horribly big request! Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks that's just great -- sannse (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Jim! Please do not ever, for any reason, feel you need to take off your shoes for me. Unless you use odor-eaters, I am concerned what the consequences might be. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

...And never apologize for fixing my grammar, typing or spelling! I appreciate the assist! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar: thanks

Hello, and thanks for the beautiful barnstar, just the thing for my user page William M. Connolley 12:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I've been giving this a fair amount of thought. Because of your efforts on wizard, I wanted to see if I could find an award for you. You came in, and were friendly, encyclopedic, and giving of yourself as a resource. No matter what the final outcome is (if there ever is one), I feel that due to all of these actions, and more, that you deserve a barnstar. I've read your home page and talk page, and while I find that we disagree on several points (even on something as the serial comma), that has nothing to do with how deserving you are of this award. (And in truth, after reading your talk page, I am further convinced...)

By the way, your actions that led me to look to find out how Barnstars "worked", has led me to award another deserving person : )

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. Jc37 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Can't tell you adequately how much I appreciate your comments -- I've been discouraged by the lack of chemists coming to support me, and to have a person not in science (I'm guessing) so clearly understand the problem of communicating a new (but already validated) view is most encouraging. THX! I have virtually given up hope of substantially changing the Entropy article, but it is so grievous to me as an old 'teach' that hundreds of thousands of students and adults checking Wikipedia will be led down the old path that has baffled millions for a century! There are several better, slightly or considerably more mature (!) intros to entropy that I'd recommend. For non-science adults, www.entropysimple.com, for youngsters beginning chem http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html or perhaps the best, the link cited at the first "what's new" at www.entropysite.com. The trend in chem is marvelously in my direction (and this morning I'm meeting with a world-class physicist-author who agrees with me and working on an article), but it's the public -- who COULD readily understand entropy via my approach -- that just are not being reached... Again, my gratitude.. Oh, P.S :-) re 'order' in the energy distribution in ANY physical system (and it is energy distribution that entropy measures!) just glance at the beginning and the end of http://www.entropysite.com/order_to_disorder.pdf . It's the final scientific 'nail in the coffin of 'disorder'. FrankLambert 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What ho

It was great to meet you in Philly, sorry it was so short. I spent most of the week chasing my own tail. I'm back in the UK with jetlag now. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

About 20; would quit if there weren't so many really good editors around, yourself included. Am seriously busy thoughGleng 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your comments Jim. If RealDefender is a sock, he's still a very sharp cookie. S(h)e's nothing to do with me, and I guess a checkuser hunt will either kill the smear or validate it; the sooner the better, because if he's kosher he's good. Think Bish is missing the point somewhat about incivility, see my User page statement on what is wrong with WP. Bye, and good luck!Gleng 10:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re evolution...

Howdy. I agree with you, my edit was a bit of a mess up. I was a bit late on rv-ing this edit by User:24.41.61.18, and since User:FeloniousMonk beat me to it, I ended up rv-ing him (her?) by mistake instead of the ip... Then User:Silence came along and fixed my foul up before I could! :)... The perils of a modem connection! :) Mikker ^(...) 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the message & for checking up on me! :-) Mikker ^(...) 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Langan article

Jim - I am sincerely trying to maintain a NPOV in this article. Please review my changes and notes in the edit boxes. I really don't think the drum needs to be beat so heavily to make certain points. For example, it should be sufficient to say that one is an autodidact and has little formal education to make that point. Obviously he doesn't have any college degrees. Likewise, the ID connection has been sufficiently noted. Langan is actually not involved in the ID movement as far as I know, other than to have published a paper in PCID and accept appointment as a "fellow" in the scholarly, rather than political, sense. TIA for your consideration. --DrL 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox version

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar - Awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. - Jc37 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution award

		The Evolution Award
		The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Jim62sch for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Orrabest, dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? ..dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new article

I was browsing through Deuteronomy last night, as is my custom, when it came to me: what Wiki needs is an article on The Bible And Sex! After all, the Old Testament is every adolescent's first dirty book - there's the story of Tamar, whoring herself by the city gates ("Well, yes Johnny, I know it's the Bible, but let's read the Psalms instead..."), Phineas making shishkebabs of an Israelite caught in flagrante with a woman of Midian (for which he was rewarded with the priesthood), not mention all those deuteronomistic laws prohibiting male and female temple prostitutes, (but not, you'll notice, prostitution outside the practice of religion), handing out the death penalty for any woman who tries to intervene in a brawl on her husband's behalf by grabbing his opponent by the balls (sounds like any Friday evening in a pub in Limerick), and blessing the practice of raping non-Israelite women captured in battle (following the slaughter of their husbands). Has the makings of a great story. Should we try to put this together? PiCo 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MfD

Hi, The article has been renamed and is again being considered for deletion. You are invited to vote again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

Thanks Steth 04:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Catholic Church

I recently take it that you removed the section for a reason although I don't see one. Usually talk first then remove? Or is that too impolite to ask for given that there is a section in the talk for this topic already started. Thanks. (CptKirk 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Since u didn't use WP:CITE to back up your claims to "sectarian" references (i.e The Vatican, The Catholic Press etc.) I can only conclude that your opinion is in violation of WP:NOR. Sorry. I have not reverted though because I will debate this with you in the discussion room. I am wikipolicy complient. I don't see how you can really state you will keep deleting something either if you cant cite your sources. That is not really wikipolicy is it now?(CptKirk 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Wikipolicy compliant? What's that, like a certified pre-owned Lexus? I'd suggest you learn before you even attempt to lecture. Get a few more edits than 48 under your belt, get a featured article (I have 2), then we'll discuss Wiki policy. Capisce? •Jim62sch• 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight At its core I believe you are in error about what Undue Weight is. No I don't understand you. Sorry. Right now for instance I could be well within my rights on Wikipedia to revert back to my article and put up a dispute sign which you could not remove along with article content I included (which meets Wikipedia guidelines and no guidelines has been proposed by anyone, including you, to refute that) until the dispute has been fully resolved. I did not do that for a reason. I suggest you take a look at WP:CIV and understand that my edits where done in good faith. I am telling you now, that I do this in good faith… so that you know. Others have also told you that also. If you do not believe so then take another look at that same policy. It will tell you want to do. As far as I can tell it is telling you to assume good faith. As for post count, experience does not equate to knowledge, especially when it comes to easy to understand guidelines that are placed on the user’s control panel by the administration expressly for this purpose. It depends on the user’s ability to grasp the policies or not.

Since you are now claiming that adding the RCC adds undue weight (funny how I was the one to use that policy first but I will give you the benefit of the doubt) to the article you will have to explain why. Saying that we need to cover all church groups if we do include the RCC statement, does not seem to have any policy to support it or a good quality reason. Do you have any? I do not think your position is logical. For example a church with 100 people that believe in the Bible and evolution should not even be mentioned in the article if the remaining 100 Million church goers do not. If 1.3 Billion Catholics are supposed to reject ID that conflicts with evolution then that needs to go in to balance the article which is biased and incorrect (i.e. – all theologians believe in ID). I would however believe that a major Protestant denomination or religion that also occupies the same or similar position to the RCC (that ID that contradicts evolution is wrong) might be omitted. Which one??? In this case then the edit might be omitting weight and giving undue to the RCC.

• For this reason I suggest you explain to the discussion room what other religions (that meet WP:RS guidelines with sources please) or theological bodies could be given due weight if holding to a position that they believe that ID is wrong if it contradicts evolution. (CptKirk 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

CptKirk, perhaps you are unaware that the onus is on you, as the editor who wishes to add information, to provide sources for the change. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. You are asking Jim to provide sources which contradict your position; please make a clear case for your desired edits on the talk page of the article, providing sources, and discuss with other editors. Let me know if you have any questions - KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, Killer. Deliver, CptKirk.

Secondly, the number of Catholics in the world is irrelevant.

Thirdly, you apparently haven't read the comments on the ID talk page, and thus are missing the point: the section you wish to include is irrelevant. Period. •Jim62sch• 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Largely off topic, but it would be nice, if probably unattainable, to get some indication of what proportion of US religionists actually support ID/creationism combined, or ID itself. More usefully, me thinks the article should mention widespread cross-denomination opposition to ID, ,,, why all them latin tags, do you expect lats to read them? .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

'Tis the language of the RCC.  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

..Show-offs. -- Ec5618 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah weel, Timor mortis conturbat me as in Lament for the Makars (or here) isnae aw Latin :)... dave souza, talk 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Noli te conturbare morte: mors inevitabilis, cur ergo hac te vexes?  :) •Jim62sch• 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheeky blighter! Whaddya mean, "Three of us are admins"? [1] And note the capitalisation and spelling: completely unrelated to your Sousaphonics. Am sair tempted to refer you to Dunbar's pioneering verbiage, though probably won't since some guy seem to have got into trouble with that sort of thing. Nuff said, dave souza, talk 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ach, I always screw that up. •Jim62sch• 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes tis.

• On WP:CITE style. Sorry KillerChihuahua but I fail to see how you missed that the statement in the article edit cited several sources. Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean?
• On figures. As demonstrated the number is important for issues of undue weight. See discussion forum.
• Your opinion unfortunately refuted by the fact that page already included a section references Church group members and incorrectly stated their opinions in some instances.
• I agree with your last statement. It is all for another article. I agree. But what is in this current one needed to be sorted out. (CptKirk 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

One hopes that all of the above is on the talk page. •Jim62sch• 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Poly what?

I had to look up Polysyndeton. Just goes to show that even a creationist can learn from "the opposition". Thanks, and I mean it, and I'm grateful, for the vocabulary lesson! --Uncle Ed 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed communist hands out bumper stickers

"Gravity - it's just a theory" – see 'Bruce blew my cover' :) .. dave souza, talk 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, he's 87?????? •Jim62sch• 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Schlafy

Regarding this edit, while I understand that he can be frustrating, attacking him for his blog title is both unproductive and a personal attack. JoshuaZ 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree as to the definitions of productive and attack. BTW: did you remember to notify him of same re his use of the word "slanderous"? What about his comments re FM? No? •Jim62sch• 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You gotta admit

That the Eagle Forum chosing Icons of Evolution as their Book of the Month is a laugh riot :-) Mr Christopher 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your comment on Talk:Uncommon Dissent

What do you see as factually false in my comment to you? I claimed that you posted a certain comment to Talk:Uncommon Dissent; that I saw no basis for your remark; and I asked you to restrict your comments on article talk pages to article content (which I misspelled "comment"). Was the comment I quoted from Talk:Uncommon Dissent not posted by you? --Coppertwig 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your more recent post on my talk page: Again, what do you see as inaccurate about my comment? Did you not post the comment I quoted and attributed to you? Which sentence in my comment do you believe to be false? --Coppertwig 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This "I have read the RfC and see no basis for the above remark" calls into question your judgment.

BTW: as noted, the WP:AGF policy covers my comments, therefore your assertion of WP:NPA is inaccurate. See WP:SPADE. •Jim62sch• 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my mention of WP:NPA was misconstrued. I intended to ask you to comply with this policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" or similar policy on that page. My mention of the page WP:NPA was not intended to imply that you had carried out a "personal attack". I should have edited my comment so that the link to WP:NPA did not display the words "personal attack". Note that in my comment I nowhere stated that you had made a personal attack, however.

My comment "I see no basis for the above remark" is intended as a statement of my judgment of the situation. It's not reasonable for you to claim that I see a basis for something when I say that I do not. --Coppertwig 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely why your judgement is questioned. Editors who are clearly not up-to-speed on policy shouldn't be surprised when they find their opinions discounted accordingly. FeloniousMonk 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA is only to be used when a personal attack has occurred, not just for the hell of it. In addition, I'm hopeful that your judgment is sufficient to see why WP:SPADE and AGF's "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" apply, and why my pointing out such fact is in no way a violation of any policy but is rather supported by policy. I suggest that as a relative newbie you brush up on Wikipedia's rules and realise that the policies and guidelines are interwoven in such a way that one needs to weigh all related policies and guidelines before commenting.

FM is correct in his post. •Jim62sch• 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Thank you for your message on my talk page. If you think I've broken any Wikipedia policy or guideline, please tell me specifically which policy or guideline and which of my edits are involved. --Coppertwig 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ach, weel.

I find it very dfficult to praise myself, so I'll just have to hope that the... rather surprising levels of support will outweigh the opposes for "not taking it seriously enough". It's one of those things: I suppose I could do it if I had to, but I hate doing it so much that when I'm not even sure I need the powers, beyond a desire to be able to help a bit more with vandalism and disputes, it's hard to force the effort. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, well, if that's the worst that comes out about me, I'll probably consider it a fairly surprising success - I was rather worried someone would start talking about how awful I was. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, you are awful! Just thought Jim would like to see this pic while stocks last, and you both might like to note that news of it has reached this side of the pond..[2] [3]. Some of the comments struck me as quite amusing. .. dave souza, talk 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia's not a parody? What is it, a parody of a parody? It's bloody hysterical. And dinosaur, as we know, is from bloody Greek, not Latin (somehow lacerta terribilis just doesn't sing). And why if Jesus riding a dinosaur? ROFL. •Jim62sch• 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice pic, eh? Came across it at TMW 1:50 PM February 26, 2007, which includes a cite from one of their impressive sources. They've updated the page to remove the pic, but left in the Latin. That good old-fashioned education, eh no? .... dave souza, talk 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no child left behind: of course their dim parents are a whole other issue. •Jim62sch• 15:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that catch phrase. Every time it comes up, my mental translation of it into Scots is "every bairn a right arse"..... :) .....dave souza, talk 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In a way, you're close. The kids spend 2 to 3 months of every 10 studying for standardised tests, the results of which only prove how well they can study for standardised tests. •Jim62sch• 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds horribly similar to the SAT tests schools here are plagued by. Am sore tempted to point out the British / Scottish idioms above, but knowing your linguistic skills will head for bed. Night night, .. dave souza, talk 00:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is far too polite to mention things like "Stupid Ass Test".  :) •Jim62sch• 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moral equivalence

Funny you should mention the Volksgerichtshof in your comment here. I was just noticing how many sites on the Internet draw an implicit comparison between Quackwatch (and/or Stephen Barrett) and Adolf Hitler. I guess, with the clear moral equivalence between a self-appointed alt-med critic and the activities of the Third Reich, such metaphors readily spring to mind. Anyhoo, I agree with your comments about that ArbCom case. What ever happened to that guy User:KrishnaVindaloo who was making himself so popular on the chiropractic pages? MastCell 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A little Latin help

Howdy! Like you, I like to use foreign phrases. Unlike you, my Latin rating is around la-0.5. I could use some of your la-4 help in doing a little bit of translation. Honest, it really is a little bit of translation. In fact it's just one word.

I want a phrase on the model of Carthago delenda est, except I want to replace Carthage with deletion or destruction or something like that (destruction must be destroyed). If we can double up the word delende that would be ideal -- something like deleto delenda est, except I just invented the word deleto because I don't really know any Latin declension. I appreciate any help you can give me. — Randall Bart 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't get you into this without telling you this involves WikiPolitics. I'm making a slogan for the AntiNotable faction. — Randall Bart 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply left on Randall's page •Jim62sch• 11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

a request, not a comment -- also in regular edit location

Another Latin request

I found this as a contemporaneous caption on a painting of Elizabeth I, used for her article, and would like a translation from Latin please,

Diva Elizabetha, virgo invictissima, semper augusta, plus quam Caesarea Angliae, Francia, et Hiberna potentisima Imperatrix, Fidei Christianae Fortissima Propugnatrix, Literarum omnium scientissima fautrix, Immensi Oceani Faelicissima triumphatrix, Collegi Iesu Oxon. Fundatrix.

My Latin skills have been rusting for several decades, and although I get the gist, I'd like to see a good translation. Do not know whether this an appropriate avenue to make such a request, as I failed to find directions on the page I accessed regarding translations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83d40m (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Response left on user's page. •Jim62sch• 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Do you want a credit for the translation if I insert it into the article? 83d40m 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's up to you -- whichever works best for the article is fine by me. •Jim62sch• 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent MFD vote

Just letting you know that I've added two addition subpages similar to the first, User:Otheus/notes and User:Otheus/aa, to the MFD description. FeloniousMonk 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:talk redaction

Hi Jim,

Upon further review, Jim, it would appear that you are essentially wrong about my removal of material from my own user talk page -- it is not prohibited or frowned upon. Please review the last sentence of Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space.

On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.

Of course, that doesn't mean you are free to express your displeasure with it. --Otheus 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Had you removed it completely (meaning the whole conversation was archived), I wouldn't care, but in removing part of a comment you altered what the person was trying to say, and therein lies the problem I have with what you did (I was pretty clear about that from the get go). This isn't the Bush Administration where unwanted criticism just goes *poof*. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology. On my talk page I said here:

I can no longer take your advice in good faith. Please STOP commenting on this matter. If we are to have a fight, let it be over something substantive and meaningful.

I'm sorry. I realized that you have good advice to offer, and I should have assumed more good faith. Also, my last statement implies that your feedback was not over something substantive or meaningful, and that was wrong on my part. I humbly offer my apology on both counts. --Otheus 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One more note. I have just come across FM's filling for checkuser on me Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Otheus. Now his reactions make a lot more sense. The only question is, will he be satsified with the results and how will we move on? --Otheus 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus

Otheus has asked me to look into his recent accusations of being a sock puppet. I, having nothing to do with any of the individuals involved, or articles involved, agreed to look into it as a neutral third party. Do you know of any particular edits that may lead to suspicions that Otheous is a sockpuppet of Agapetos angel? The article that I am aware of them having common edits on are Jonathan Sarfati. Is there another article that I am unaware of? My research has shown that Otheus has only edited that article 6 times, of which 5 edits were reverting edits by an anon to a previous state, reverting himself or making minor grammatical changes. The only edit I could possibly see as tenditious is [4] which appears to be a re-wording of the content. I am not very involved in this case, so pardon my ignorance, was Agapetos angel and his sock puppets known for re-wroding phrases? If so, I stand corrected in my assumption that Otheus is in fact not a sock puppet. There are several other reasons why I believe this to be the case as well. If you have a take on this, or a personal opinion or anything, I would love to hear it. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the ban applies to people who edit like him. Especially in regads to the edit inq uestion, Otheus has only 6 edits to that article, and only 1 of them are actual edits. I guess I dont see a connetion there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and disagree that it does not hurt to check. I personally would be very offended if I was accused of being a sock of a tourlbesome editor. I realize that sock puppet investigations are important, But I think that many wikipedians are too quick to say, "your a sock puppet, were gonna get you". (please not, this is not a rant against you, just what I have seen so far and why I feel the sock puppet process can be detrimental). It is really easy to say, "You are a sock because you edited the same article as a disruptive editor." Should Otheous not be a sock, would anybody apolagize for making the accusation? While I think it is important, I think it can be very detrimental when used wrongly. I guess from what I have seen, this is bordering on one of those situations. And, in all honsety, if the wikipedia community were to turn on me one day and accuse me of being a sock, i would be offended, how about you? (Please note again, this is nothing personal gainst anybody, however vague generalizations about how I feel in regards to sockpuppets). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Intelligent design

wherein you wrote "I'll be blunt: the proposed is a bullshit intro" concerning my proposed rewrite to the lead paragraph. I couldn't find a WP:BLUNT, but we do have a WP:CIVIL policy. Would you be so kind as to edit your comment to be less offensive? Thanks, Cat Whisperer 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you are not aware, there is a difference between a Wikipedia policy, such as WP:CIVIL, and mere essays, such as the WP:SPADE you referred to on my talk page. In any event, I can find no constructive criticism contained anywhere in your blunt comment, so I will not be responding to it on Talk:Intelligent Design. -- Cat Whisperer 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you found nothing in WP:CIVIL to back up your first post.

As for whether you choose to respond or not, as it was a general comment and not directed at anyone, I don't really care if you respond. That's your choice. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment "BTW, have you read WP:CIVIL yourself? Damned if I can see any vio" (and subsequent comments) on my talk page:

Yes, I have read WP:CIVIL, including WP:CIVIL#Examples (Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment) and WP:CIVIL#Why is it bad?.

I'm here as an editor in order to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I assume (per WP:AGF) that you are as well. I had thought that you would be interested in finding out how you could improve our working together on this common goal by being less offensive in your talk page comments. You have made it painfully clear that I was mistaken in this belief. I apologize for having bothered you. I am happy to consider this matter closed, if you are. -- Cat Whisperer 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat, I'm not trying to be dismissive of you, I'm just noting (perhaps too forcefully) that choosing to respond or not respond is up to you. (Also, I just looked at the page again and realised that you created the proposed intro, so I can see why you were upset). But, as noted above I was not dismissing the editor, just the proposal. Hey, I've had proposed edits torn to shreds, and I've just moved on to another attempt at a better edit. I'll add an addendum to my response so you know what my criticism is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[5] 150.203.2.85 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Guettarda 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interested in homeopathy?

When researching George Vithoulkas I came across this bunch of links which seemed to be rather up your street, for example this one. For some strange reason expressed at Talk:George Vithoulkas#Removed criticism Mr. V's fans don't seem to appreciate this chap's views. All entertaining stuff. :) ... dave souza, talk 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That one link sounds remarkably like my own theory of the genesis of religion. Small meteorite hits earth, big flash and boom, people knocked dowm, trees flattened, someone must have thrown it, that someone must be big, that someone must be a ... god. In other words, humans have an innate need to explain things and events, and if they don't know the actual exlanation, they make one up based on their knowledge-pool and experience.

I was at a funeral the other day...folks leaving artefacts in the coffin with the body -- just like or ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. A priest with holy water. The whole ritual of sacred words and promises based on prevailing beliefs. Things sure haven't changed much. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think homeopathy is bunk. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Which may be why the true believers get so upset about a sceptical view being added to the article, and this reaction: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Campbell. Me, dunno if he's notable – yet. ... dave souza, talk 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He may not be...but, I agree, let's give it some time. Sheesh, some of these editors are nuts. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ars Magna

Haec immatura a me iam frustra leguntur

Nescio dicas. They "what" are being collected? I'm not sure how you are intending to use "frustra". Haec -- why feminine, or are you intending plural neuter acc (in which case you could be referring to "verba")? (BTW use four tildes ~~~~ to sign your posts). Gratias tibi ago. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a quote. From Galileo. Leguntur is third person plural passive of legere, referring to 'things' (understood) which goes with the adjective immatura and the pronoun haec. Frustra is being used as an adverb. Find out what context he said this, and you may learn how my quasi-poem you removed is salt wit, not vandalism. Richard1968 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what leguntur is (you forgot to mention that it's present indicative ;)...I knew that what you initially wrote was related to something...I know that frustra is an adverb...you explained haec...however, I assumed you were writing your own saying. In any case, since you didn't sign, it appeared to be vandalism. Now that I know that you are not a vandal, but a literate person, I'll be unlike to merely remove what you post. Pax mentis bonae tecum sit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so venus has phases like the moon. But, I don't really feel like dissecting the anagram of I CAN RISK DYER, SOCRATIC MUCK... FLING SUCH A CRANK! A SIEGE IN LUST - SO SNIFF MACK. RANSACK! NAG! NAIL!

Use of POV template

Jim, you removed my addition of the POV-section template. I did not understand why you did this. Was it because you think nobody but me is engaged in an NPOV dispute about that section?

You might take another glance at Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_page, where it says this:

• Use this when the bulk of an article is OK, but a single section appears not to be NPOV. You should explain what's wrong with the section on the talk page.

I wish you would leave NPOV dispute tags alone when you see them placed on an article, until a consensus develops on the article's talk page that the NPOV dispute has been resolved. --Uncle Ed 18:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, it's quite humourous that after inserting your POV into the article (a POV that was reverted), you decided to add a POV tag. Try using fact tags or request better sourcing. You know better. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Adiu!

Ai vist dins ta pagina personala que parlas occitan! Sul projècte occitan, avèm besonh d'ajuda! Sabi pas s'èras al corrent de l'existéncia de la "Wikipèdia". Esites pas a nos rendre visita, ès benvengut!
A lèu! Wikipèdia Cedric31 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmercé, Cedric. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Department of Conservation (New Zealand)

You place a tag requesting sources fpr the article at Department of Conservation (New Zealand). Can you elabourate on its talk page? Alan Liefting 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design"

Hi Jim, looking over your previous posts it seems like your preference for bluntness is closest to my own, so I'd like to talk to you directly. I came across the ID page when I was looking for a non-Christian, more scientific variant. It's clear to me that that page is a hopeless mess of argument and (to be blunt) bullshit, but I'd still like to get something out of it. I want there to be a page, somewhere, under some name (clearly not "Intelligent design") that deals with the idea of a designed, artificial universe and/or designed or engineered humanity. It's not "teleological argument" because not all of those ideas are religious in nature. I'll be happy to work on such a page, and to do my best to make sure it can't be "hijacked" by the ID people to serve as some sort of evidence that their "official position" is non-theistic (the last thing I want is to get the religious fighting making it impossible to research this other topic too). I think you've been dealing with this type of endless arguing a lot longer than I ever would, so I'm interested in hearing your opinion on how I should proceed, and how best to avoid the whole ID flamewar. Thanks! --Sapphic 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit

Your bluntness is refreshing considering the level of duplicitous doublespeak used by certain editors. I congratulate you. If I only had the balls to say what you do, I'd be happier on here!!! Orangemarlin 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gnixon had bitched that FM had reverted his digression without comment, that doing so wasn't fair, that he (nixon) had taken a very long time to write the digression, that he was insulted, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam (and I really do mean nausea) -- so, I only thought it fair to provide a reason for the rv lest Mr Nixon thought I was being unfair towards him  ;) Ugh, sometimes Wiki can be more drama and trouble than than a soap opera and we can't even win an Emmy for our efforts. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch out, that editor will file some Rf something because you've insulted him. I gave up editing articles where he was located, because he whines if you revert any of his POV pushing edits. I decided it isn't worth the effort. I'm having fun with some nice intellectual pursuits on here. Orangemarlin 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He's free too do so, of course, I don't mind. Of course, the process can be used the other way too: he's a rather tendentious, POV-pushing editor who frequently wreaks havoc on the pages he edits, including causing other editors to avoid articles he is actively editing due to the nature of his edits, particularly on the talk pages. Wouldn't surprise me if a few folks aren't already considering an RfC on his behaviour. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're stalking. Diff I was accused of the same. [6] I just plain gave up on it. There comes a point when someone's POV pushing needs to pushed back by someone else, because I just don't have the time or energy to be nice about the push back. You should check out some of his POV edits. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me. If you think I'm right, I could use some help. Orangemarlin 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he apologised...sort of. POV edits on Physics or on ID (I know he's done some stuff there) or elsewhere? I don't care about his staking charges -- if an editor is running around making changes with a specific POV that he's pushing in violation of policy, fixing those edits is not stalking. See [7] Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

-- "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this an appeasement too far? Is this chappie to be the patron saint of faith based npov? Time for coffee and kip. .. dave souza, talk 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, reminds me of Chamberlain after Munich. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the Fringe 1961:

Oi'll never forget that day that war was declared

Oi was out in the gaarden at the time, planting out some chrysants

It was a grand year for chrysants 1939, oi had some lovely blooms

My wife came out to me in the gaarden and told me the Prime Minister's announcement of the outbreak of war

Never mind, my dear, oi said to 'er. You put on the kettle, we'll have a nice cup of tea

<avoids mentioning the appeaser Chamberlain actually declared war on the Nazis, unlike some who waited till Hitler declared war on them. Ahem. Just trivia with no relevance to present company> Ta for your assistance, may the Good NPOV prevail........ 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did ye cross out the delaration info? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an inadequate html attempt to replicate typical British-style muttering brought on by the reminder of all those black-and-white war films. Gad, the horrors of war films. Chamberlain is much maligned, mostly deservedly. Meanwhile, the battle of ID continues, without my participation for a bit. What make you of recent goings on? .. dave souza, talk 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the question wasn't meant for me, but let me put in my opinion on the ID discussions. It appears that there are 2-3 POV pushers who seem to be exceedingly patient in the matter. One of the pushers complains that he's a "pot smoking liberal" but doesn't agree with the lack of NPOV on the ID article. As a matter of fact, very few "liberals" brag about their pot smoking. I don't inhale whenever I do. Another of the POV-pushers uses a technique of throwing in dozens of edits. Most of them look very legitimate but two or three are in fact very POV (anti-Evolution, in this case). Another one just keeps pushing the anti-Evolution POV over and over. Guettarda has indicated that there might be some interesting activities afloat to push a pro-religion agenda, and they are very careful as to how they do it. These users appear to be doing so. Another issue is that the several editors who have stood up to the POV-pushers aren't around. I've given up, because frankly, it's not worth responding to every bogus argument they make. Then if you do accuse them of their POV pushing, they file an WP:ANI, which takes more time. I'm frustrated by what's happening. ID is nothing more than a subtle religious argument for creationism. Why is there such discussions going on? I like Jim's responses--he's blunt, and could care less about what they creationists say about him. This whole thing is depressing. Orangemarlin 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> It's a bit more complex, as Morphh raised a genuine point which was backed up by a reading of Kitzmiller, leading to the current use of version 2. Despite the ghastly heading of "Just the facts, ma'm" which had me looking to see if it was a rasping person, Tomandlu is genuine and ok, imo. As I write, a useful suggestion is being put forward and agreed by Gnixon, who appears to be fair and against pro-ID pov, judging by recent actions. Looks promising, but I'm thinking about it before commenting... dave souza, talk 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

2004_Madrid_train_bombings

Jim,

Back a few months ago, I stumbled into this nasty cobweb of an article. There are three or four main editors who are fighting over the issue of sources concerning this article (and its derivations). Though I wanted to help, I slowly backed out because I realized I had insufficient literacy skill in Spanish. Given that you're currently the only experienced Spanish-competent editor I know here, I'm asking if you have the time/energy/interest in helping sort out their dispute. --Otheus 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Otheus, yes I'll gladly check it out tonight and over the weekend. Weird, but to me that should be a pretty straight-forward story, but I guess nothing's ever easy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this [8] good enough to remove the "fact" tag, Sir?. Randroide 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide, hi, that's cool. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim, just before I left the debate, I assisted the group by starting DR on the talk pages, which is now archived, and you can read starting here. That seems to be the basic summary of issues. But of course, things get very personal and entangled shortly again after that. I'm really interested in this, so I'll continue to monitor, but beyond that, I doubt I can be of any help. Oh, your spanish might be better than Igor's english. --Otheus 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this edit [9]?. I am tired of being the ogre reverting Igor21´s edits.

If you are not following the debate about the bombings in Spain, Igor21´s is a textbook example of POV edit. I can source this assertion if it is necessary. Today, I have had enough "hardening the Kalaji bunker".

If you think that the issue merits your attention, please be extra-kind with Igor21.

As a supplement to the link provided by Otheus, please take a look at Talk:11_march_2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_9#The_.22weight.22_of_the_groups_that_voice_doubts_about_the_completeness_of_the_Indictment.

Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide 09:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his horrid spelling aside, he is correct that the controversy surrounding the authorship has significantly lessened -- most people seem to have accepted the decisions of the courts. The controversy over the government response and Aznar's attempt to pull a Dubya and misrepresent facts, as well as police incompetence and potential negligence is real. Aznar thought he could simply pin the bombings on the ETA and ride hatred of the Basques to reelection of his Party.

In any case, a bit of rewordng is certainly needed.

BTW, it's no inconvenience ... I like new challanges! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Of value might be La Teoria de la Conspiració from Catalan Wiki. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see another set of eyes on this page. It is as initially described. I hope you can return and continue to participate. Someone with a facility in Spanish, but not previously involved in this article, is greatly needed.--Mantanmoreland 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Volta Do Mar (band)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Volta Do Mar (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to delete it...I moved it as an album had been listed on Wiki. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)