User talk:Jim62sch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:08, 15 April 2009

in memoriam: Karl Ramjohn and Floyd Lucas [1] Pax caelis sibi ago

Veit ec at ec hecc vindga meiði a
netr allar nío,
geiri vndaþr oc gefinn Oðni,
sialfr sialfom mer,
a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn.

Per me si va ne la città dolente,
per me si va ne l'etterno dolore,
per me si va tra la perduta gente.

archive1 archive2 archive3 archive4 archive5 archive6 archive7 archive8

Handy hint: to keep discussions in one place, if you leave a talk message I'll answer it here, though I may put a note on your page if getting your attention seems important. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.

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, 27December 2005 (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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. Jim62sch 10:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Jim62sch 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're stalking. Diff I was accused of the same. [2] 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)[reply]

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 [3] 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." Jim62sch 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep, reminds me of Chamberlain after Munich. Jim62sch 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? Jim62sch 09:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

Wow

Lovely work on God - the article is improving enormously. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't know you were such an expert Jim. I know who to run to for help on all of these religion articles. :) Orangemarlin 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. ;) Jim62sch 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

I wish I could read it. Sophia 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written what I have written, but you have not read what I have written. (Technically, I should have done "scripsi quod scripsi", but I didn't want to mess up the biblical reference.) ;) Jim62sch 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that one - I may use it and pretend I know latin! Sophia 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like this one too (I leave it as an edit summary when I get frustrated with Fundies trying to do things like put dinosaurs on Noah's Ark): "In principio creavit homo dei et ex eo tempore poenas dederat" In the beginning, man created the gods and he's been paying for it ever since. ;) Jim62sch 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or my favorite, Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur - "Anything said in Latin sounds profound". I find it useful in dealing with Jim. (:-P) OTOH, Non gradus anus rodentum may be more to your liking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No step ass rat? What? If you meant what I think you did, it's not translatable. Nil morari is the closest you can get. Interesting tidbit: in Latin, the root of "profound" (found most often in the phrase de profundis), is the exact opposite of "altum" in the quote. Jim62sch 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nil carborundum illegitemii! Which reminds me, Johnson is regarded as the father of ID, but it was evidently conceived in 1987 before he'd even heard of it, which casts some doubt on the legitimacy of the offspring.... dave souza, talk 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sign when illegitemi reminds one of Johnson, but it's true. :) Jim62sch 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the slow approach at the hypothemyth page - it's not worth getting frustrated about. Also Str is OK with me - we have our moments but with enough time and attempts to work out what each other mean, we should end up with a stable title. Ta for the latin - they will come in useful when I want to look educated! Sophia 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure Str out -- he makes some good edits and some really bad ones. Sometimes his logic is sound, other times it's seriously flawed. And I really wish he'd leave the language stuff alone -- he has no clue what he's on about. Now, I have to go try to stabilise that section. Grrrr. Jim62sch 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's flawed like all of us. He made a point over at one article or another, where he was very logical. However, I still disagreed with him. Orangemarlin 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The joys of being human. :)

In any case, on the God article he's busy claiming that Allah is not the Muslim name for God, while claiming "nameship" for a variety of other "words". I really wish that people who know nothing of linguistics would leave linguistic/etymological issues alone. Jim62sch 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of [[Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg]]

Here is a notification that the deletion of

is being reviewed. The Drv may be found at this location. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted..." In the DrV, users may discuss relevant issues in attempting to form consensus, as well as assert Uphold Deletion or Overturn Deletion, with a specific rationale for the stated conclusion. ... Kenosis 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? What is so hard about grasping the legal concepts? Seems to me we have more than our share of officious admins who think they have the legal knowledge of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, but who are more like Vincent LaGuardia Gambini on a bad day. Jim62sch 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I hate to engage in hyperbole, but here's some. I notice that the image at right, being a freely licensed image, was kept in this IfD while the classic, even stunnning Einstein-Planck image was deleted because WP wants to be free. Free of what? of everything of value in the world that someone hasn't yet given over to "free-license"? Arrgh! Thanks for letting me vent here. ... Kenosis 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the importance of that picture is that it shows just how stupid the up and coming generation is. However, the Einstein/Planck picture shows just the opposite and heaven forfend that we should depict intelligence when ignorance and idiocy are the general rule. Bah! Jim62sch 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep your talk page on my watch list just coz I love your comments! Sophia 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I occasionally have my good days. ;) Jim62sch 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I just saved the images to my computer for future reference. Two of the most brilliant scientists ever in a picture whose licenseholder must be dead by now. Thanks Jim for making my day with your commentary. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought for a new day

The sun is shining for the moment here, so after all that πολεμικως, Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag :) ...dave souza, talk 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you the only one to catch the irony? I laugh...so as not to cry. Jim62sch 09:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed it out, you blighter! As noted here, that apposite article was a nice example of writing therapy. As it happens, it was inspired by one of the usual topic related arguments when someone mentioned faggots which in my opinion are ok but a bit more disgusting looking than haggis – but then I recall you have your own regional delicacies that outsiders probably don't appreciate. Chacun à son goût springs to mind, but I can't quite remember what it means. ... dave souza, talk 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody has gout." Bishonen | talk 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, very close. Each to his own taste. Jim62sch 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, revising my version: "Everybody tastes good." Bishonen | talk 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oooh, I like that one! :) Jim62sch 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have excellent French. I can say "J'ai assassiné mon oncle au'jourd'hui dans le jardin." And I'm working on some more phrases! Bishonen | talk 21:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

PS. Nothing yet — I guess I only have an excellent sentence. Oh well. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What did your uncle do and why was he in the garden? Jim62sch 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Sorry I've not been of much help lately, but things have been a bit crazy. And, thanks for tackling the rewrite -- quite a challenge you took on. Nice job. Jim62sch 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Hi Jim, I don't regularly visit Intelligent design but noticed that some of your comments there were a little more sarcastic than necessary. That topic can get combative at times, so best not to turn up the temperature. Stay cool, man -- you'll score more points in the long run that way. Raymond Arritt 03:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, thanks. Yep, I get pretty pissed off -- it's this whole "not suffering fools" and "getting tired of proving that the sun is yellow for the nth time" thing. Personally, I find sarcasm to be an effective tool, but I understand your point. Oh, others who have posted here will likely be wondering why my response to you differs from my response to them: your comments were constructive, not accusatory. I respect that (even with my penchant for sarcasm ;) Take care. Jim62sch 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it -- we see the same thing over and over again on the global warming related articles (all the CO2 is coming from volcanoes/the ocean, etc). The worst is a couple of characters who know nothing about the science and in fact have demonstrated an alarming lack of aptitude for simple quantitative reasoning, yet quite comfortably talk down to other editors. Wonder if I can send Wikipedia the dental bills from gritting my teeth. It can be frustrating as hell, but I try to remember a quote I heard, "the one who loses his temper first, loses." Raymond Arritt 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the global warming arguments, and I've mostly managed to stay out of them. Cuts down on my bruxism wikiosis bills. :)

I think what bothers me most is that those with little or no understanding of a subject tend to dominate the discussion and waste everyone's time until said tendentious fool is finally driven away. It can be very draining.

As for global warming, I can understand some of the dfisagreements as the science isn't quite as strong as I'd like to see it. Is it improving? Yes, but it still has a way to go, and we'll never get to the point where we can predict anything climatologiucal beyond the level of a reasonable possibility (it's that whole butterfly in the Amazon thing). However, that doesn't make the theory wrong, doesn't mean that CO₂ is spilling out of volcanoes or leeching from the oceans, doesn't mean that GW is some liberal conspiracy, doesn't mean that denialists aren't denialists deluding themselves with religion and pseudoscience, etc. Jim62sch 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noetic necropathy

Just noticed that one.[4] It's a keeper. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Jim62sch 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope

This edit summary almost restores my faith in humanity. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek question

Is this edit correct? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, yes. The Theta actually represented an aspirated "t" not the th sound in either this (call an edh) or think (called a thorn). Two asprirated T's would've been a bit much for the Roman tongue (and, it's unlikely both T's were aspirated even in Greek by the 1st or 2nd century CE -- the t's weren't initially aspirated in Hebrew, but the Greek spelling comes from a contraction of Mattathias, and the first theta represents the middle vowel (the lack of which may have been mistaken for aspiration in Hebrew)). Yep, clear as mud.

Anyway, see Matthew 9:9, look for Μαθθαιον (accusative of Μαθθαιος) Jim62sch^dissera! 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I feel ignorant. Are you aware of a good source we could stick in the article to back this up? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check into one. Jim62sch^dissera! 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalcanal

I just noticed your helpful edits [5] to the Guadalcanal Campaign article. I appreciate that. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I love WWII history (and have my share of books and DVD's on the topic), but I've just gotten side-tracked by ID/creationism vs evolution stuff too often to do as much editing on WWII articles as I'd like. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

Just so you know, there is a report about you here. To say that I consider the report to be misguided would be an understatement. PhilKnight (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If I was vindictive". LOL. Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire complaint is beyond ludicrous. Sorry if that offends anyone. I would have a lot more to say, but I think I will just shake my head in amazement over this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that not only is ArbCom completely FUBAR, but admins over at AN/I as well :-( Shot info (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil for notifying me, and for your kind words. Thanks also Guettarda, Fill and Shot info for your support.

Looks like the whole silly affair ended quickly, although I find Sceptre's and particularly Kelly's comments to be harrasment and a complete mistatement of the Arbcom decision. For the benefit of Kelly and Sceptre should they wend their way here: I was not placed on a short leash, nor was I muzzled, nor was I prohibited from editing any articles. I was enjoined from what Arbcom saw as bullying, thus raising an irony here as bullying seems to be what Sceptre and Kelly are doing. And, as I've noted elsewhere, I'm getting really, really tired of the ID Cabal bullshit. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quack, then. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't quack, then."? Meaning what? Please enlighten me, Sceptre. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62<font face="Times New Roman"

Poor showing on Sceptre's part, I've dropped a reminder about civility. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the note. Perhaps it was embarassing, especially in light of a proposed RFA?Jim62sch^dissera! 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Sceptre, why did you intentionally misquote me? If you think you could read my mind, I assure you that you can't. Had I meant "Christian scientists" I would have said so. If you've not figured out by now that I say precisely what I mean, I'm afraid you never will. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee that any answer you get here is not going to move things forward, so I'd suggest just dropping it and moving on. The Mets are on an 8-game winning streak, so I know you have other things to worry about... :) MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I really didn't expect a good answer from either Kelly or Sceptre, but I did want to express my outrage. And damn those Mets. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Future Reference

[6]. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] is future proofed. . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it provides a wealth of data for analysis. It seems funny to me that the same folks who push the ID Cabal bull, seem to show up en masse when certain editors are involved. It's like a surreal pot-meet-kettle thing. I also found it interesting that on a discussion regarding civility, several of those folks were quite uncivil and one was really pushing teh dramaz. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC) [8] Jim62sch^dissera! 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace process: pseudoscience

See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying reliable sources

I've left a note on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

No users (excluding arbitrators) are to edit proposed decision pages. That's a rule that's always been in place. I put your omment on the proposed decision talk page. Wizardman 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the sanctity of the pantheon. Can I have a ref, please? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is automatically placed on every proposed decision page of all arbcom cases in the first paragraph. While I don't see it in the arbitration policy, I have also never seen it broken, and it appears to be generally accepted. Wizardman 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a convention not a rule. In other words it's piffle. Cool. Other than the edit-warring problem, I could restore it then. Cool -- especially as my comment raises a legitimate issue. Of course, legitimate issues that question "authority" are bad. Bah. Jim62sch^dissera!

No, you couldn't readd it. We've shown you where it said you can't, so no wikilawyering please. It's protected anyway, so I suspect you'd find it rather difficult. If you've got concern, add it to the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very grown up response...reads like "nya-nya-nya-nya-na". It's a convention, it's not a rule -- no wikilawyering crap, just logic. I know, I'm just a rouge non-admin who wonders if wiki can dig itself into an even deeper hole. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such concerns, drop them (presumably civilly) on that page's talk page. It's my experience that the arbitrators do read them. - jc37 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanctity of the pantheon"??? If you're trying to impress people with your maturity and reasonableness, that may not be the best approach to achieving that goal. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to impress anyone, as there really aren't very many people here worth trying to impress. There's a very real problem with cognitive dissonance on WP, a problem that has only intensified over the course of the past year with the inability to grasp a situation objectively, secret tribunals, support of known internet kranks, et cetera. Bottom line is that WP is farther away from Jimbo's dream encyclopedia than it was three years ago and has degenerated into an on-line forum that attracts primarily the lunatic fringe. Shame, really. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have used the wording "leave the impression that you are mature and reasonable", which is a different connotation than "trying to impress" anyone. I'm not here to impress anyone either, but I do want to leave the impression that I am mature and reasonable (and collegial), because that's what I think I am, and know it's what I want to be. If you don't actually want to be those things, there's a bigger problem, I guess. To your larger point, I do think there is indeed a problem with cognitive dissonance, and that it's growing. Heck, I am currently subject to something that some might call a "secret tribunal" right now (although I happen to agree with the need for confidentiality), and I'm dismayed at some of the recent developments in various cases. What's funny/ironic/interesting here is that two people can agree there's a problem, even on the nature of that problem, but not on exactly what the contributing factors are. (or maybe, even on what the contributing factors are, but just not agree on which people should be binned where). I suspect that might be the case here, at least in part. But really, to the smaller point, trying to abide by the norms of cases seems goodness to me. And that does nothing to take away from the validity of the point you were initially trying to raise. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We probably just have a bit of a difference in the way we analyse things, which is actually good for the project. On another, non-WP, issue, a difference of opinions regarding root causes might have benefited the US and other NATO countries in addressing the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Not, of course, that we're disagreeing on as important an issue.

As for the norms, I understand the desire to support them, but if you look up my "personality type" (INTJ) it's remarkably close to what I'm like. In other words, I guess I don't find much comfort in norms.

As to collegiality as a concept, Academia if chock-full of examples of anything but. Not that that's great from a standpoint of civility, but it probably does help us gain more knowledge. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

On an AN/I proposal i've been compiling, you wrote this cryptic note:

What would Satan do? Jim62sch^dissera! 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this an obscure joke of some kind? If so, perhaps you have me confused with someone else who might appreciate it. I'm sure that tagging pages is fun for you, and i would not want to spoil your fun, but leaving random, unhelpful graffiti on my work-space is rather childish, even for a Wikipedian. Grow up soon, okay? Thanks in advance! catherine yronwode. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You post from an IP even though you have a user name? Huh?

Basically, your diabolical smear campaign against hrafn deserves precisely what I wrote. Not childish ("even for a Wikipedian", whatever the hell that means), simply accurate. To me, smear campaigns are childish. Of course, YMMV.

Nice bio, speaks volumes. What was that about growing up?

By the way, as I only left one comment, the word would be graffito; if it were truly graffito, that is. Jim62sch^dissera! 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name-calling and uncivility is unhelpful

Your recent name-calling and snide comments against User:Catherineyronwode both here and here are not helpful and quite against the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Please stop. Thanks, Madman (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to look at her bio you would understand the references, thus dispelling amy thoughts of "name-calling". Are the comments snide in the context of the forum? Nope. Additionally, Cat's crusade against a valuable editor is the very definition of incivility. Thank you. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing your incivility and name-calling. Even if she were uncivil, that would not justify yours -- snide comments are snide comments, whether here (as in your reply) or anywhere else. Thanks in advance for stopping, Madman (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mis-read Jim's comment. It's rather strange to scold someone about "incivility" and then ignore their perfectly reasonable request of you. If you call yourself a biology professor, and someone refers to you as "the biologist", that isn't "name calling". Guettarda (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time interpreting this posting as anything but a snide comment devoid of content. Madman (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would he do? Shot info (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL

Gee-wiz, ya can't even pun on WWJD around here. ;) By the way, Madman, if it's devoid of content (which is a philological and logical impossibility), why did you get yer knickers in a twist? All you really need to do is to analyse the comment in the context of the bio, and the context of the ~~plot~~ plan to degrade and attrit Hrafn. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

I'd really like to think that my initial impression of you was correct. But lately, I've been concerned with what I've been seeing.

What has occurred to cause such a dramatic change?

(I do notice you've removed the Barnstar I gave you.)

If you've a wont to, would/could you please clarify/explain the apparent change in personality, perspective, and tone? - jc37 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real change, and I can't give you all the details as doing so would require me to turn into Moulton and release personal info. I won't do that. But, keep the user name I just mentioned in mind. Visit Wikiversity. With a little digging, it'll all become clear. Sorry JC, that's the best I can do -- I'd love to explain it all, knowing that you'd understand, but I just can't in this forum. Jim62sch^dissera! 15:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Thank you.

I will defer from jumping on the bandwagon of accusations. But I'd like to gently request that you consider your comments a bit more. Those who may not have had such positive interactions with you in the past may misunderstand or misconstrue your comments. Whatever is going on, I would like to hope that it doesn't end up causing you (further) sanctions. - jc37 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are speaking about v:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia (and such), I should probably note a few things.

I (at first, rather not aware of what was truly going on) posted at the talkpage (diff) rather early on.

However, something was striking me as "odd", or seeming a bit "off". So I did a bit of "research", as it were. (As you say, this probably isn't the venue for discussing such.) And in the process decided that this "discussion" was probably not what it appeared to be, and really wasn't a place that I should be (diff). Since then, they apparently moved the early comments to a sub-page (diff), with no links from the original talk page that I see.

Why post this? Because I'm hoping that you don't place your eggs all in a basket that may not be what you think it is. (Then again, perhaps you are aware and I'm being naive. But then, WP:AGF does lean us all towards a touch of naivite : )

Anyway, I hope your days go better, and I wish you well. - jc37 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's more to it, but ... Jim62sch^dissera! 19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to be blocked for a time, you can request it formally rather than fanning drama. I suggest you cool off on your own. You're still welcome here. Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All good advice. WP:NAM seems apposite. . dave souza, talk 08:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look nothing like a Mastodon. ;) Luke, I'm not fanning drama, I'm simply quite tired of the illogic of the proposed desysopping, the cabal allegation bullslop, the inaction regarding outing (see above), the secret tribunal of OM that resulted in no action against FT2, and on and on. Editing articles is great, but I can no longer edit without someone dredging up cabal bullslop or ascribing motives. I appreciate your comments, though. Jim62sch^dissera! 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for something completely different

Hi, if you're too annoyed to be patient with a newbie lemme know - but I need a linguist (old Greek and latin, I think) to assist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot help, can you point me in the direction of someone who can? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assist where? What do you need? Jim62sch^dissera! 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor, new to Wikipedia, User:Alleichem. S/he has been making questionable edits to God, see her/his contribs and talk page. Really that's all you'll need to see - the desired edit is a bit questionable to my ignorant mind, and the source given (after I asked for one) does not support it. I don't know if s/he is confused, misinformed, informed but bad at finding sources, or something else. I figger sense yew no langitches yew kan tel. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Follow That Man (aka "Man Against Crime")

Is this how we welcome new articles? (and I mean new -- within two minutes of its creation). Enough -- get a life. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:41, 22 Septembe 2008 (UTC)

oops sorry that was a mistake a apologise on that one I have been tagging a bit too much ;)

Alexnia (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK ... I was a bit touchy because, well, it was the speed of it that totally startled me. It's all good though, and I'm sorry if I was too pissy. Cheers. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German translation

Hi again Jim. Here I am again to request another translation, this time in German. Whenever you have a couple of minutes to spare could you have a look at this image. I'm ok with the map's labeling but need a little help with the key. Any help would be much appreciated. --Gibmetal 77^talk 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gib. Here goes ...

Iberoromanische Sprachen = Ibero-Romance languages

Spanisch bzw Kastillisch = Spanish, aka, Castillian

Asturisch = Asturian

Galicisch = Galician

Portugiesich = Portuguese

Katalanische mit etc., = Catalan, including Valencian and Balearic.

Aragonesisch = Aragonese

Andere Spachen = Other languages

Gaskonish = Gascon (a form of Langue d'oc

Languedokisch = Langue d'oc

Baskisch = Basque

Englisch - well, I'm sure you got that one :)

Hope this helps. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! Thank you very much, I can now go ahead and create an English and Spanish version of the map. Thanks again, and I hope you don't mind me asking for your help with translations every so often! --Gibmetal 77^talk 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask away, this is the kind of stuff I like. :) Please let me know when the map is done, I'd like to see how it turns out. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good to know! I'm just planning to label over the existing image, I'm a lot better at product design than I am at graphic design. Will let you know when I upload it anyway. Gracias de nuevo y hasta luego! --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as a Reliable Source

Jim, there's a bit of a dispute about the appropriateness of blogs as a Reliable Source in a BLP article. Since you've commented this issue in a related article, and seem familiar with WP-policies related to this issue I was wondering if you'd take a look and perhaps make a comment. Thanks. - DannyMuse (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

Jim62sch, I am concerned by some of your recent comments at various user talkpages, and Talk:Intelligent design.[9][10] Though there is no individual comment which is way over the line, it does appear to show a pattern of uncivil sniping, rather than providing constructive comments which are focused on the article. Especially in articles that are already powderkegs, such comments may tend to escalate disputes, rather than de-escalate them. I also note, looking at your contribs, Jim62sch (talk · contribs), that over the last few weeks your activities have focused on a very few talkpages, and that you do not appear to be doing any actual article work. I'll be honest that I've been pondering whether or not your presence on these articles is helpful, and/or whether you should be asked to stay away per one of the relevant ArbCom cases, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Note that I am not making this a formal warning, but please accept it as an expression of concern. So, in the future, could you please try harder to focus on positive changes to articles, decrease your comments about other editors, and strive to adopt a more positive and constructive tone? I think that would be helpful in many ways. Thanks, --El on ka 22:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as was asked of you by another editor: why are you digging up old things? Why are you trawling? Why are you stirring the pot?

In a best-case scenario, you are expressing your opinion. To quote something I said in another forum: "[editors] are entitled to their opinions, and if their opinions were offered meakly and apologetically, I'd be disappointed. Why? Because true academic types care deeply and really do argue. The collegial myth is just that, a myth. Two of the greatest physicists, Einstein and Heisenberg argued bitterly and the study of physics is stronger for it."

I'll note that having read your six editor challenge far more than six editors have had significant problems with your MO. BTW, you're clearly misreading my RfAr -- read it more carefully when you get the time. Jim62sch^dissera! 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: re "over the last few weeks your activities have focused on a very few talkpages, and that you do not appear to be doing any actual article work." Is there some prohibition against talk page activity? Is there some magical percentage or ratio of article work to talk page activity? Is there a requirement that volunteers must dedicate a specific amount of time to certain activities? In all honesty, I don't see your comment as being particularly helpful, I see it as harassment.

This, I see as a threat and as bullying: "I'll be honest that I've been pondering whether or not your presence on these articles is helpful...". You might wish to consider redaction. Jim62sch^dissera! 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you regard my comments as harassment. Please rest assured that I have nothing personal against you. We have never (to my knowledge) worked on the same articles, and I know nothing more about you than what can be gleaned from your userpage and contribution history. As for your other comments, I do agree with you that a certain amount of spirited debate can be very useful! However, this must be focused debate, which is targeted at the article, and not at other editors. I would also like to reinforce that my comments here are not an official warning. When I issue warnings, they are very clear, with a formal template, and I log things to the appropriate ArbCom case page. And I do understand what you're saying about your own case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch, and that it's probably not directly applicable here. The Pseudoscience case, however, is a different matter. Anyway, all I'm asking for now is that you consider my comments, and perhaps try to adopt a more collegial and constructive demeanor on talkpages. You are still welcome to argue with force and passion! And as long as those arguments stay in accordance with WP:CIVIL, you probably won't need to worry about any other warnings from me. :) Thanks, --El on ka 16:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that my comments were sarcastic, and a thorough search of WP:CIVIL indicates no prohibition against sarcasm: in fact the word isn't even mentioned. As no editor whomsoever was targeted by my comments, and as they referred to general observations re the tenor of the discussions, I do not in any way see them as incivility. More to follow... Jim62sch^dissera! 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you chose the pseudoscience RFAR to reference, since one of the biggest debates on the ID article has been whether or not ID is pseudoscience.

In addition, you did not answer my questions re some magical ratio.

Finally, I've noted that you've been flitting about WP recently leaving your lists of "concerns" on various user's pages (and, interestingly, it seems to be mostly editors with purported pro-Science POV's[11]). I'm not sure how this is your place, nor do I see how seeking out things that displease you by trawling through the contribution lists [12] [13] and then dumping these "lists of concerns" on a user's page with, in a number of cases, clear threats, is in any way anything other than trollish, and in some cases bullying [14]. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not really keeping track of who's for or against which types of content. More I try to check to ensure that editors are only adding information which is based on reliable sources, that the sources are properly interpreted, and that any edits do not appear to be in violation of policies or talkpage consensus. However, if you feel that I'm giving warnings more to one "side" than another, I am definitely willing to re-examine my practices. Is there someone in particular that you feel should have been warned, that was not warned? If so, please provide a recent diff or two which show problematic behavior, and I'll definitely take a look! Thanks, --El on ka 19:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you're either missing the point or talking around what I'm saying, andwhat others have said regarding your behaviour. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gemo. [15] Jim62sch^dissera! 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo...

... talk page format... making eyes bleed... it hurts... make it stop... MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could ... I screwed up the formatting somehow. Jim62sch^dissera! 12:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I like this format much better, thanks. :) If you need any other assistance, please don't hesitate to ask! Also, I notice the talkpage is getting a bit long... If you'd like, I could set up an archive bot for you? That would automatically archive any old threads that had gone inactive for a certain period of time (30 days?) and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Let me know, --El on ka 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had simply forgotten to break several center and font tags.

As for archiving, I'm happy with what I have here, but thanks just the same. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Stick around. I rike your crome-from, scooby-do!--Buster7 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rank roo Ruster. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber and Scholarship

I hear what you're saying about the symbol/meme being the more important topic. No argument there. Still, I've had to take a balanced approach because aspects of the meme were being eliminated on the basis that they infringed on Joe the person. It's been a long an winding road on this article. Mattnad (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's a reason, but from purely intellectual and academic standpoints it's maddening. Personally (as if it could be anything else) I think Joe W is being smeared unnecesarily because the article is so wedded to the person. Look, I think the guy's a bit of an intellectual cipher, especally in his lack of understand of the tax code, but it's every American's right to be dim. In fact, the meme points to the McCainaanites' disdain for the intellect of the vulgus with the charge of socialism that grew out of Obama's response: we have always (since 1913) had a progressive income tax (at it's worst under Ike) the object of which has always been to spread the wealth. Focusing on Joe W isn't getting these cogent and important points across. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're onto an interesting line of thinking that's probably OR by Wikipedia standards (for now until someone else writes about it). One academic line of thinking can separate the man from the meme. And other the hand, one could explore the juxtaposition of the idealized "Joe the Plumber" with the reality of the man. From a literary standpoint, JtP is a tragicomedy. Mattnad (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that it's OR, but damn, I'd get a 4.0 on a PoliSci paper. :)

I'd do a rather brief bit on the tragicomic character first and then delve into the meme. Not to toot my own horn, but I was damn good in my college major -- n0t perfect though, I had a 3.9 GPA. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Regurgitate"? Naw... "Vomit" seems more like it now. Mattnad (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL, awesome! Thanks, I needed a chuckle. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 21:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not trying to be difficult there, I'd just like to see a political article follow political sciece (which isn't totally a science, but...) Jim62sch^dissera! 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in here, I don't want to start a new section. Am I the only one on the JTP talk page that is beginning to wonder if Collect is being deliberately obtuse? For example, why did he spend yonks of space on repeating over and over again how "Plumber's Helper" is a synonym for "plunger," and to the point which he refused to even discuss the actual issue over it (a synonymous expression) - seeming to refuse to even recognize the existence of synonymous terminology? Tonight, I have to wonder if he's stonewalling again over the focus on the one early citation from the NY Times while there are many more up to date citations, yet he seems to refuse to recognize it. Is this just me, is this unreasonable of me? I would like to get the discussion moving, I'm afraid that I have some suspicions that Collect may possibly not be interested in getting us to a solution - or is this just my individual perception of the situation? If he truly had an issue or contrasting point of view to bring to the table, wouldn't we be seeing him bring that up, rather than what seems to be simply parroting the same thing over and over again? VictorC (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need the help of the science commandos

A creationist is making a stink over at Talk:Solar System and Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Not sure where to go from here, but I figured you guys would have some idea of what mechanisms Wikipedia had at its disposal to deal with this sort of thing. Thanks. Serendi ^podous 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Serendipodous. I caught sight of this request when Jim's talk popped up on my watchlist. I've written a message to the user on Talk:Solar System. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bish ... you no doubt were more tactful than I might have been (I have agenetic flaw that prevents me from suffering fools :). And BTW, I wish you weren't withdrawing from the Arbcom elections. Jim62sch^dissera! 13:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definitely nore tactful. I wonder what would hapopen were I to include "evolution" in the article on Laton? After all, it evolved through PIE, Ancient Latin, Classical (Gold) Latin, Silver Latin, Vulgar Latin (which evolved simultaneously with the two previously mentioned stages) to Proto-Rmance (with a sideways evolution to Medieval Latin) to the Romance tongues, all of which then evolved in their own two to four part evolutionary paths. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 13:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek words with English derivatives

Hi, sorry for the delayed reply. I am planning to get back to the article when I have a bit more free time. Btw, I love your work there! The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T:Thanks! Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JtP RFC

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licesning Mattnad (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collect's argument (such as it was) looked spurious to me. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's actually a pretty intelligent person. But sometime I think he's playing "lawyer for the defense" and will do whatever it takes, even if unfounded, to push his POV. I was actually surprised nobody came across these articles earlier since there was so much debate around this topic. And what got me going on the research was Collect's attempts to excise any mention that Joe's legal status as a plumber was questioned.Mattnad (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's reasonably intelligent, but the game is too transparent to be of any real value in supporting his position. His biggest boon seems to be that Beck supports him, either directly or indirectly. In the meantime, the article continues to suffer. I only hope that it isn't the first article, or especially the first talkpage, that a potential Wikipedian stumbles across as it certainly does not set a good example. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to get clarity on a point - care to contribute here? Mattnad (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I think we have a better chance of fitting ourselves through a kitchen drain.Jim62sch^dissera! 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is forum shopping again [16] Mattnad (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's a shock. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! Jim62sch^dissera! 18:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man Against Crime

Thanks for cleaning up the article. Looks good. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Jim. Thanks for creating the article! Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I had to create the article as I love that show. Bellamy really made the character seem alive, and the undercurrent of humour is awesome. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble

Check your source for spelling, it's Carl Ramjohn. Very sadly. Feel free to delete this post. . dave souza, talk 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see guettarda's page. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My error, and presumably the newspaper's. Thanks. . dave souza, talk 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much for that paper being a reliable source. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 14:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myths of Grandeur and Burden

An admin recently posted "there are over 2 million articles on Wikipedia, and only about 1500 administrators, so we're spread pretty thin.", to which I responded, "Additionally, the number of Admins vs articles is an invalid comparison from the proposed ratio standpoint. At least 95% of our articles generate little or no debate, so the actual ratio is much, much lower in terms of the need for admin intervention.". I then used the "random article" function to pull up these 35 articles at random: Grenada Lake, Clear Lake (town), Wisconsin, Kalanchoë mosaic virus, Frank Bosch, Matteo Saradini, Lieven Gevaert, Irish League 2000-01, Banlieue, Bird Machine Company, Ladislav Šmíd, Marika Vicziany, Roman Catholic Diocese of Rēzekne-Aglona, Licínio Pereira da Silva, CHERUB: Maximum Security, Ozon Radio (Serbia), Morten Tyldum, Parker Hale M85, Analamerana Reserve, Colin Campbell (academic), Zara Aldana, Real time policy, Deleted Scenes from the Transition Hospital, 1930 Chicago Cubs season, Test Soon Development, 3100 Zimmerman, Lawrence, Michigan, Brixton tube station, Adolfo Bautista, Sahasi, USS Rockwall (APA-230), Emerald Square, Postage stamps and postal history of the United States, Barsanti, Tomago, New South Wales, The Immortals. Not a one of them showed an intervention. Interesting, i'n'it? Jim62sch^dissera! 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pseudosciences

Regarding this: [17] Don't. --El on ka 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a threat to me. You've yet to explain your authority in this matter, and you are clearly not an uninvolved admin as Dave Souza tried to point out to you. "Don't" or what? Seriously. You're being divisive and seem to be outgrowing your britches. I see no reason to keep that section, nor do a number of people. I sincerely hope you are not seeing this as a personal battle, as I have no personal grudge against you. However, from what I've observed, your actions rarely seem to be in the best interests of WP. Respondez vous, svp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

The page is currently under indefinite full protection, so the drama was already there, long before I arrived. My own goal as an administrator is to try and find a way to stabilize the article, so that protection can be lifted and normal constructive editing can be resumed. Anyone who obstructs this process, or seems to be spending more time on the page stoking the drama-fires rather than actually engaging in constructive discussion about the article, is going to be asked to leave. For your own part, you've been making some good comments in the article discussions, and I encourage you to keep doing that. Don't worry about the list of editors, let the administrators handle that part. So far you're not in danger of sanctions, and haven't even been given a formal warning about the arb case. If you try and do something silly like reverting administrators though, then that could change very rapidly. So please, just focus on the articles? Thanks, --El on ka 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, the job you are attempting to do is not being well-done.

As for stoking drama-fires, you've BTDT so far as I can see. Sorry, but that's my impression. And, I'm clearly not understanding your stated motives as they seem to be at odds with your actions.

As for sanctions, methinks you would hardly be the appropriate person to apply them.

As for "reverting", note that I said archive, and note that as Jimmy Wales has noted, an admin is just an editor with a few special tools and nothing more. Nothing more. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, German isn't one of my languages, could you please stick to English? And in terms of ArbCom enforcement, even administrators are not supposed to revert other administrators who are trying to enforce ArbCom sanctions. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity. That's because it's accepted that ArbCom enforcement is, by its very nature, controversial. If these disputes were easy to solve, they never would have risen to the level of ArbCom to begin with. So please, work with me here? You're right that we may be talking past each other from time to time, but overall I think we're on the same side, in that we both understand it's about the articles, not about the dramaz, yes? --El on ka 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out the Arbcom enforcement part, and how you, as an involved editor should be riding herd. Sorry, Elonka, but I can't see how you can considered yourself divorced from the issue. As for the "list" it seems to serve no purpose: I've read your defense for the posting of the list but I am more convinced now that it'a not valid or helpful or in the best interests of WP than I was when I asked the question. A wise move now would be to remove the list -- think WP:AGF. (It certainly could not hurt, and yet leaving it, and its attendant section, on the page may very well hurt). I don't want to see the latter happen.

And yes, in our own ways, we are on the same side: we agree on the end, but not on the means.

Oh, "Ich glaube nicht" means "I don't think so". Sorry, but I had a dream in German last night and I've been thinking in it all day. Very irritating! Jim62sch^dissera! 01:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, and here I thought it meant, "I glow at night." ;) Anyway, as regards the wisdom of keeping the list on the page, I understand that some editors are not happy with it, though others seem not to care. The key thing is this: There are obviously disputes on this article, since it is currently under indefinite protection. In order to try and stabilize the article, one tool at administrators' disposal is that of ArbCom sanctions. In order to implement these sanctions, ArbCom requires that a clear warning be issued prior to invocation of any arbitration remedies. The warning is therefore necessary. A few of the editors on the page are already aware of the potential of sanctions, but other editors may not be, so the list should not be removed yet. Later, it may be appropriate to move the list to a subpage. --El on ka 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of us (or both) might glow at night. ;) I think I'm far enopugh from northern NJ, but I don't know where you are.

Still, this and how you, as an involved editor should be riding herd. Sorry, Elonka, but I can't see how you can considered yourself divorced from the issue needs to be answered. Much rests on a direct answer to this direct query. Jim62sch^dissera! 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an involved editor (shrug). I honestly have no preference either way on what goes into the article, as long as it conforms with policies. Ditto with the other articles in this topic area. To my knowledge I meet the standards at WP:UNINVOLVED, which says, "An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved." I've not been involved in any editing disputes on articles in the topic area, I'm not a significant editor of the "list of pseudoscience" article, I haven't been involved in revert wars on the article, and I'm definitely not under pseudoscience sanctions. I swear to you, I'm not furthering any agenda except that I want to help stabilize the article and get it out of its chronic state of edit-warring. I'm not favoring one side or the other, and I am doing my best to use administrator tools and access from a position of neutrality. Any editors that I have dealt with in the past, I have dealt with as an administrator. And again, I haven't restricted, blocked, or banned anyone here yet. So far I'm just gathering information and issuing warnings. Now, your turn: Can you give any indication of why you think I'm "involved" here? Please be specific. I don't want gossip or "I've heard" or "it's obvious". I want specific examples of things that I've done or said on-wiki, which may have led you to the conclusion that I may not be able to exercise administrator tools from a position of neutrality. Because I'm not aware of any, but if you have anything, I'm very interested to take a look at it. --El on ka 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Elonka, but please give me 'til rtomorrow as it's near my bedtime. I now understand where you're coming from, although the policy is a bit subjective, something you had naught to do with. BTW, I absolutely hate gossip: it's the old-time equivalent of "I read it on the internet". Jim62sch^dissera! 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Elonka, as has been explained to you elsewhere, you are being disingenuous by equating the article with the issue that Jim mentions. The "issue" is that you appear (however falsely) to be taking sides with the civil POV pushers across several articles. This particular article, which yes you are "uninvolved" by means of having never edited the particular article, is just yet another dot point of the overall issue. You need to deal with the issue as it was one of the principle discussion points of your RfC. However perhaps you have decided not to take sides, but it seems to be something unconscious with you, perhaps you automatically side with the "underdog" which is science related articles is almost always the POV pusher. Personally I don't know but it would be refreshing for you to consciously take steps to remedy your situation. Jim, apologies for jumping in here. Shot info (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above about "specific examples". --El on ka 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SI, your feedback is always welcomed! Jim62sch^dissera! 02:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No worries then. Shot info (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, one final point that I raised to Jimmy a good bit ago on a much differtent issue: while perceptioon may not represent fact in a logical sense, it does in a more ephemeral, and sometimes more "real" sense. Jim62sch^dissera! 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2) Elonka, either you take on board the advice given to you from your RfC, or you don't. It's really your choice. Given that you seem to be very, very, very interested in what seem to be the same editors over and over again (even other admins are once again pointing this out to you), does this imply that you have learnt from what editors suggested to you in your RfC, or not? Your call really and I for one would like to see that you have changed. You're not given me much hope at the moment I must admit. As for diffs, go and (re)read your RfC. Shot info (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perception is indeed important, but never impotent: [18] Jim62sch^dissera! 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ditto: [19]. Not that these preove anything, necessarily, but they do seem to cast the "uninvolved" status into question, at least in spirit. Jim62sch^dissera! 03:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? That comment was made in my position as an administrator. --El on ka 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not wait until tomorrow, unless I decide to post further in a discussion that has reached itsne plus ultra. Item one shows another Admin, in his capacity as an admin, questioning you. I'm not very clear why this concept fails to register, but obviously it does. Perhaps our perspectives are different, wjhich is totally allowable, but at a certain point pure logic needs to be clearly discrenable to even the most benighted soul. Or, I could be wrong. Jim62sch^dissera! 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we see three evidences of of the clear perception that Elonka is too involved to be impartial: [20], [21], [22]. Note that the secopnd comment is from an admin acting as an admin. Again, perceptions are only representative of inferences drawn by the observer, but when five different observers draw the same inferrences and hence have the same perception it is wise to assume that these perceptions taken as a whole carry the weight of truth, especially when these inferences and perceptions belong to people known for their analytical skills. Were wiki the court Elonka seems to want to make it, their would be a vociferous and unified call for her to recuse herself.

I haven't the time to look for additional diffs at the moment, but I have little doubt that the inferences drawn and the perceptions held will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by any number of diffs I could provide. In addition, while no one diff may prove damning, I have little doubt that the pattern they will establish will prove to be damning and will establish culpability vis-à-vis previous and continued involvement in pseudoscience debates. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The observers are not neutral: Most are showing up because I have warned them in the past about other matters. If you want, I can provide diffs, but that would just get us sidetracked. Instead, I would repeat my previous request, which is that you provide specific evidence of my being "involved" in this topic area. This idea of "five different observers draw the same inferences" goes back to your previous comment of "I read it on the internet". C'mon, you're smart enough to know that just because there's smoke, does not necessarily mean that there's fire. So let's see your evidence that allows things to be "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt". I'm tired of these gossip mills. So please either back up your accusations with evidence, which is evidence of things that I have done, not evidence of what other people are saying I've done (and again, without any diffs for backup), or else retract your accusations. Or even better, go whack some sense into the other people that are filling your head with nonsense. My guess is that if they're overstating the case about me right now, you've probably heard them overstate the case about other things as well in the past. But that's between you and them. For now, I'm just trying to address the false gossip. You seem like an individual who's willing to take a principled stand on things. Are you big enough to admit when you're wrong, and strong enough to stand up against those that are trying to use you as a pawn in their own political battles? --El on ka 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This manages to be both insulting and hysterically funny.

Obviously, you are missing the point re "perception", and the power thereof. In addition, you ask the rather trite, "Are you big enough to admit when you're wrong" -- flip it around. I've yet to see you admit an error and yet I have admited a number of errors (and no, I'm not going to dig up the diffs to satisfy what will no doub t be your desire to see the evidence to prove my statement).

Note that you've warned me too (see Concern above), but that has little bearing on anything. Tan warned me abnout something and yet we've since agreed on several points with no malice on either side, and yet you seem to be equating receiving a warning with generating malice towards you. KC for one and Guettarda for another, are not editors who bear malice over such trivial things. And yes, many of your warnings are trivial: in physics terms, you tend to focus on the action of one neutron while missing the activity of the other neutrons, the protons and the electrons whizzing about.

I'll also note that the only politicval battle I see here is that which you are instigating. But, what do I know? I was only a PoliSci major with a 3.89 GPA. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth hurts?

[23]. Very interesting. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And [24]. WTF? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. N. Annadurai

Hi Jim! I saw your name listed in Guild of Copy Editors. Can you please help with the above article. I reckon it might need a lot of help. Thanks Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 14:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does! I've started. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Once you are done, can you also let me know if you think it is GA worthy. :D Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure will! Jim62sch^dissera! 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm going to look into the Tamil language a bit so I can get a sense of the syntax, etc. It should help as it seems that the article was not written by a native English speaker. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Let me know if I can be of any use. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and linguistics

I read and appreciated your comment on Orangemarlin's page. Obviously I am the wrong person to interact with Stevertigo, and I am trying not to do it. But it sounds like you would be a good person to comment on these linguistics issues if the (and I am sure eventually they will) come up again. Would you mind checking in on the Jesus article periodically to see if it comes up again? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Stertigo is now editwarring (against a general consensus of editors who have been working on the Jesus article for a long tim), insisting on adding this paragraph:

The Yeshua transliteration is controversial, and certain Hebrew scholars have disputed its etymological derivation as an inaccurate reconstruction.^{[citation needed]} Hebrew Midrash appears to support the use of Yeshua —the name Yeshu ha-Notzri directly translates as "Jesus the Nazarene." But the term Yeshu has certain anti-Christian meaning, and this fact complicates using these texts as the basis for the name's etymology.^{[citation needed]}

Frankly, I think it is just BS - he doesn't name the "Hebrew scholars" and misses my point entirely which is not that some scholars dispute the etymological derivation, but rather that all major scholars simply acknowledge that we have no historical sources for Jesus' name in Aramaic or Hebrew (Stevertigo seems not to care that there are no sources). I do not think the Midrash is in Hebrew, I am pretty sure it is in Aramaic (again, he just does not know what he is talking about, he is making stuff up). The Midrash does not argue that Yeshu was Jesus' name, it just has stories about a guy named Yeshu. It is modern Talmud scholars who debate whether this Yeshu was meant to be Jesus or not. If it was not meant to be Jesus, as many argue, then there is nothing anti-Christian about it. Those scholars who claim it is about Jesus read the stories as far more ambivalent and not clearly anti-Christian. Again, Stevertigo clearly has not read any scholarship on this, he is just making it up and in a bumbling way trying to incorporate his misinsterpretations of points I made in yesterday's discussions.

Obviously I am upset and not the one to continue engaging with him. I hope you can bring some sanity to this! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my watchlist. The paragraph he's inserting is shit. I fail to see how any of those names could be anti-Xian, as the first Indo-European (and Christian) version was the Greek Ιηςους, which points to Yeshua guiven that the iota had to sunstitute for the palatal (Y), Greek had no "sh" retroflex (except "sho", but that was only used in Bactrian), the long u would be "omicron upsilon" (ou) as upsilon alone was akin to ü (or the French u in sur), and by the 1st century CE, maculine names generally ended in an "s" (sigma). Jim62sch^dissera! 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Midrash are in Hebrew others are in Aramaic. The midrashim that discuss Jesus are as far as I am aware Aggadic material in the Talmud which would be likely in Aramaic. Furthermore, there is as I understand (no citation here) some evidence that some of the lines in the Talmud that mention Yeshu may be late or may be heavily redacted. I'm not aware of any claims that Yeshu or Yeshua have an anti-Christian context. That claim is a bit puzzling given that Messianic Jews are found of using Yeshu and variants thereof for Jesus. Marginally related question to Jim since he knows the linguistics better than I do; as I understand it, there's an argument that the name may have been Yehoshua and the middle h got more or less dropped when the name came into Greek (as happened with Aaron which was Aharon). Is there any basis for that? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh. And yes, the internal "h" is a possibility. Greek could not add a lone aspirate between vowels. Asprirates were represented by either a "rough breathing" sign at the beginning of the word, or by the use of the compound letters (Θ, Φ, Χ) when the addition of the consonant would have negated the rough breathing (for a modern comparison -- albeit a slightly different concept -- see the "soft" and "hard" signs in Russian). Jim62sch^dissera! 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as I thought about this later I found that I was asking myself one question, "where did the o go?" Obviously "ho" would have formed a syllable, but the h would seem to emphasise that syllable and it seems odd that it would drop out in only a short peiod of time. There's nothing in Greek morpholgy that would have prohibited Ιηοςους or Ιεοςους; and the fact that the e is an eta, not an epsilon, would seem to indicate that the e was stressed. Having said all that, when dealing with transliterations between unrelated languages, strange things do indeed happen as all sounds in one language do not necessarilly exist in the other language. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Dropping the entire syllable is strange. It might be more expected if the vowelization were simply under the letter in question but it is a separate vav being used right after the hei. So dropping it is odd. Also note that the same when used in the Old Testament Joshua got the first syllable dropped but not the second. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not totally impossible though, just very odd (and dropping vowels is usually (in my theory, at least) due to laziness on the part of the speakers of any given language). But, in all honesty, we'll never know -- the best we can do is guess: well, unless we find the alleged "Q" source written in Hebrew. In fact, this points to one of the frustrations a linguist faces: we have to reconstruct based on the norm,; a task that is not always satisfactory or satisfying. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

linguistics

know much about ethnolinguistics (e.g. Sapir-Whorf and post S-W research along these lines) and sociolinguistics (Labov, Hymes, etc.)? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A decent bit, although I prefer pure-linguistics. What do you need SL? I'm sure I can help. I have a good friend who did the Penn-Oxford-Harvard bit on his way to a PhD in linguistics, so, if I don't know the answer or an unsure, he'll help out. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and so it goes

Note this.

I am not on Wikien, and I have no desire to engage Stevertigo right now. But do you think this is an accurate account of the problem? Slrubenstein | Talk

See Richard Nixon: they're all out to get me (or what it was he babbled). That post by Stevie is crap. If Stevie knew anything about linguistics, he'd never have made such a nonsensical claim on WP to begin with. Yeshua is "anti-Christian", eh? Wait, in a sense it could be, but not in the way he (Stevie) meant. Yeshua was "Jesus'" name, and Christos was not his surname ... in fact it's very debatable whether or not he claimed the "throne". Which, of course means that if he didn't, he was anti the honorific later bestowed upon him. OK, that's a bit twisted so far as logic goes, but you probably get my point. (I hope). Jim62sch^dissera! 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. He doesn't know anything about Hebrew or Aramaic specifically, either. I just feel flustered - my point from the start was that his initial edit was original research and poorly-informed research, but I didn't question his good faith. AndrewC made it clear that the issue had been discussed and there was a consensus. And he kept escalating it! For me, this is simply real scholarship vs. bad scholarship (for you too, I know) but he seems to think this is about some big moral issue, or the human rights of Christians, or something, I just do not know but everytime I try to respond to one of his comments rationally, I feel sucked into a more and more irrational world.

I am not on Wikien and do not like the idea of his representing the situation in a biased way. Any blocked user can use his talk page and the appropriate template to appeal a block, and if he thinks a few of us are somehow conspiring to keep him of of the Jesus article he could do an RfC, these are perfectly appropriate ... why go off-wiki with it? So i cannot respond? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that he's fishing for support, hoping that whatever folkls don't like you or OM will come to his recue (or some such rot).

You're right thast he's treating it a some moral or ethical issue, but I can't see his point at all. It just doesn't make sense -- I think his world might be beyond irrational (kind of like a Twilight Zone). Jim62sch^dissera! 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that "Yeshua is "anti-Christian"". (That would be silly). I said that the name "Yeshu" had anti-Christian aspects and associations. Toledoth, yimmach, etc. I might deal with some of the other points when I have time, but I find this conversation at least interesting enough to deal with. -Ste vertigo 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to expand, please do. I may have misread the comment.

I'm not clear how the Toledoth itself is anti-Christian or had anti-Christian aspects. To me, the yimmach (yeshu) issue is akin to the stories popular in Medieval Europe of Jews driking the blood of Christians. At worst it seems to be a case of confusion on the part of some scholars. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree with Jim here. Note also that there is an actually derogatory variant used by some Orthodox Jews, "Yushkie" which is partially done to avoid saying the name of an idol. Given that, and given that some Christians use Yeshu is used by a variety of different Christian groups I really don't see any anti-Christian association with that name. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what does Toledoth have to do with anything? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be darned if I know: seems pretty innocuous to me. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

err?

Re: Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, how many times... "a year the sun goes round the sun"? :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. LOL and thanks. I simply must slow down on my typing (or at least remember to proof what I type). Well, that's definitely my biggest and worst typo of the year! Jim62sch^dissera! 20:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome

It's okay. I used Lupin's antivandal tool to find it. I highly recommend it if you have not installed it. Also, be sure to sign your messages with (~~~~) ! Cheers!

--Wyatt915✍ 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to sign, too? Man, I had a bad day yesterday. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Thanks for the notification. BTW, does "Shoemaker's Holiday" have any cultural significance, like "Banker's Holiday" does? Just curious. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, dude!

I appreciate your concern for weasel words, and really would welcome our suggesting a way to fix that paragraph. Also, as long as you added the mention that the LXX refers to David as Christ, do you want to add Cyrus (if I am right - I don't have the septuagint but I know that Cyrus was also a "Messiah")? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think I know what paragraph you meant, and what your concerns are (I'm pleading that I was intollerably dense for a spell), I'll try to think of something.

Cyrus I'll have to look up (oh, the eye strain ;)

BTW, he're an on-line septuagint: [25]. Jim62sch^dissera! 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks. I am not the right person for the Septuagint - I really recognize only 2/3 or so of the Greek letters. For Cyrus, look up Isaiah 45:1. Don't worry about temporary denseness, I have had my share, more than my share! But I appreciate your help with that passage. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually took the initiative and made tha changes, but would appreciate your reviewing and if necessary correcting them, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One item at at time as I'm researching a bit (while watching the two younger kids) ... Cyrus was indeed referred to as χριςτω in the LXX (Isaiah 45:1) [26] (7th word if you're looking it up). Jim62sch^dissera! 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same is used for David at 2Sam.22 [51] [27].

As the LXX predates the NT by a bit, the translators could not have known of Jesus and did not "save the moniker" as it were. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2Sam.23 [1] uses χριςτου (genitive). Jim62sch^dissera! 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and assuming I was looking at the right thing (Ranosonar added a bunch of stuff I need to go through) it looks OK. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think we both agre that as the LXX was done before the Gospels, the Jesus article must make clear that they are one source used for reconstructing certain suppositions, and do not in and of themselves prove anything, that is one of the things I tried to accomplish through my edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're correct. The names did change over time, just as "Yakov" became "Jacob" and hence Jacobus, Jacobomus, amd Jacomus, and hence Jaques, Giaccomo, James, Diego (via Santiago) etc.

The comment about LXX wasn't meant for you, but for any visitors. Sorry if you though I was telling you something you already knew (or was being elitist -- a charge levelled agin my by User:little landed marsdon). Jim62sch^dissera! 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Personal attacks

Stating that I am not going to rise to provocation is not a personal attack. A personal attack insinuates implicitly or explicitly something about the editor in question without any good reason. I'm not quite sure what it is about the ID discussion, but it was tersely charged from the beginning; accusing people or personal attacks seems to be in vogue. I'm not under any illusion that I'm immune from our civility guidelines and policies; I'm not quite sure what you hoped to achieve by "warning" me. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Grow up" is most certainly a personal attack, or at least reads as one.

The rest, regarding uyour handling of the situation stands. If you approack Kenosis with the respect due any established editor, you will see that he can be quite willing to work with you for the betterment of WP.

That's what I hoped to achieve by notifying you of the perception created by your comments re the image issue. Tyhink of this line for instance, "However, being willing to change my mind does not mean that I will accept any old invalid argument you choose to throw at me". You talk of a desire for Kenosis to "please stop patronising me", which he had not done, and yet your own tone is patronising. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment, Kenosis's first contribution to the current discussion, was clearly patronising. "Grow up" was, as I said, a response to provocation- anyone who goads needs to grow up; telling them that is no more a personal attack than telling people to stop uploading copyvios is a personal attack. I have little doubt that Kenosis is not willing to improve the encyclopedia- I would just like a little reciprocation of that feeling. Kenosis's instance about my motives is proving somewhat counter-productive to the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon interjection please: Mark the words "telling people to stop uploading copyvios". If I understand this developing situation correctly, that diff may be needed to help call to account who said what, and what was their stated justification for doing so. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a clear enough question to me. You seem to want to imply intent re certain comments and yet I don't seee Kenosis' comment as anything other than a chance to clear up intent. Were you pissed that the stuff was Wiki-lionked? Too bad, so sad.

You indicate that Kenosis is focusing on motives: that is, to an extent, as it should be. Why, praytell, do you wish to delete the image. Surely there are more productive things you could be doing on WP. If I recall, nagazine covers are fair game ... but then the rules change so often that one can never be sure.

That you think someone was goading you may be seen as more of a need for you to grow up. I saw no goading, and think your implication is just a tad off the mark. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I know your Greek is good ... how is your Hebrew? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit shaky, unfortunately.I keep meaning to study both Hebrew and Arabic in more depth, but never seem to get to it. You could try JoshuaZ, he's pretty good with it. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Talk page pic

Are you trolling, in that you are just trying to goad me, or are you really so ignorant of Wikipedia policies that you do not understand the difference between a free image and a non-free image? Either way, I really think you need to consider whether you're contributing anything worthwhile to the encyclopedia by joining in these discussions. My refusal to consider discussion is not any admission of guilt- it's just that the discussion was, at that time, getting nowhere, and I would rather (as you so lucidly suggest elsewhere) work on something else. Look at my contributions. All I've been doing for the last several hours is working on fungi articles. I'm not some bloody one-trick pony. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen much of a real contribution from you (non-fungi category), nor have you bothered to answer the questions re your untoward comments to Kenosis. Hence, we seem to have the same opinion of each other.

Yes, I understand the diff between free and non-free, but the US copyright laws treat magazine and book covers differently, and Wikimedia, bering based in the US, needs to abide by US law.

Trolling, no. Trying to get a rational response, yes. (Are they the same? I really hope not). Goading, no, not that either -- however, I do find it interesting that you like to toss that word about rather freely. In any case, as you chose to open a can of worms, you really should be willing to discuss the matter in a non-partronising manner.

Fungi? Better you than me as my knowledge of fungi is quite limited, other than knowing that sauteed mushrooms go well with a nice steak. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more of my contributions, I've also written articles about reality TV, heavy metal music, other music, films and my local area. I've been here a while, I've delved into plenty of areas. I repeat- I'm not a one trick pony. I only really started dealing with non-free content after I became an administrator. No, I do not consider book covers any different- in terms of Wikipedia policy, there are two types of image. Free, and non-free. These book covers are non-free. Book covers are certainly images that could often be used within our non-free content criteria, but that does not mean that they are as good as free- neither are DVD covers, album covers, logos, images of dead people and so on, even though they are all images of a type that would often be considered acceptable. Seriously, if you think book covers should be treated differently, you want a policy change, and I reccomend that you raise the issue on WT:NFC. Trying to use my arguments against non-free material to apply to free material is, if not indicitative of you being a troll or just plain ignorant (which you assure me it isn't...), extremely odd. Rest assured I wouldn't consider using the image if it was non-free- what was your point, if there was a legitimate one? J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you like good music, I see.

Covers aren't the same under US law. And just as WP:BLP must adhere to US law, so must WT:NFC.

My point was that I wanted to get you to talk. I wanted to understand why you feel as you do. I don't agree with you, but I do understand, now. Your JS Mill pic is fine, and the quote is fine (in fact, On Liberty is one of my favourite books), but you seemed to have ignored much of what was said to you recently, that I wanted to pique your interest.

A word of advice: don't be so defensive. When people diasgree with you, they're not being dicks, they just disagree. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see you're willing to be civil and friendly about this, I'm happy to discuss it with you, and even just start over (no hard feelings and all that). Anyway, policy may be based on U.S. law, but just because the law allows something, doesn't mean we should do it. I'm allowed to smoke, I'm allowed to join the army, I'm allowed to eat meat, but I don't do any of those things. On Wikipedia, policies are far stricter than law, and, in any case, U.S. law isn't of much consequence to me, as I'm British. I can appreciate that I may be coming across as defensive, but, right at the start of the discussion, there were a lot of very defensive comments, objecting to my actions. These were primarily because of two assumptions on my part- firstly, that the images had slipped in rather than being deliberately placed by the authors, and secondly, that there was any contention about the necessity of the covers. I'm being completely serious now- exactly the same edit on almost any other article would have met with practically no opposition, and any opposition that had come up could be dissolved with a friendly nudge towards policy, or perhaps a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. I had no idea that this would be so controversial, and I'm honestly alarmed that it still is. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is always good, even in cases where people get just a bit testy. The reason for the controversy is that this is (I believe) the third go-round for the picture issue on that article, and I suppose it seems the article has become a bit of a target -- although I don't think that was your goal, aim, motive whichever word fits best. But, it's bwecome a target for a number of other reasons, especially when believersd in ID and creationism "ganged-up" with the aim of remaking the article in their own POV, and deleting items that met WP:V and WP:RS, qand in some cases violating WP:POINT by placing extraneous {{fact}} tags on the article. Well, that's enough of the sob-story, I mean background :)

I understand your feeling about US law and I suppose I feel the same way about some British laws, so barring a rewrite of the policies at WP:NFC I guess the law doesn't so much matter. I also understand the Foundation's wariness on issues like NFC and WP:BLP as the Foundation has been burnt a few times.

That being said, I still think the covers do aid understanding in that they show the depth of the issue in the US (and that too, may be part of the problem: ID really is primarily a US issue, with some support in Australia). I suppose the latter is why you were asked to become a bit more familiar with the ID issue.

On another issue: what got you interested in writing about fungi?

Also, I see that you're represented by the Manx flag in the wikicup, and that raises a question as a linguist: do you understand Manx? Not necessarily an easy language (but neither are any of the Gaelic/Celtic languages given the P-Celtic and Q-Celtic changes). I get muddled on the pronunciation of those languages. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that ID editors may find themselves the subject to a lot of rubbish, so I realised once there was opposition raised that the discussion was going to be a long one. The legal side of things are the concern of the Foundation- we're not lawyers (well, I assume you're not, I know I'm not) so best to just stick to policy concerns- that's often hard enough anyway. I know that the books are important to the subject (as I have mentioned, I'm actually fairly well aquainted with the subject matter) but the issue, as I see it, is that their cover art is not particularly significant in itself, and I do not see how the reader's understanding is actually increased by knowing what it looks like. You argue that it demonstrates the depth of the issue, but how does it actually do that? Surely the prose does that better? Also, why those covers? Why not others? Why not more?

As for your other questions, I sadly don't speak Manx, I just chose a flag that was fairly local to me. Fungi are just a little pet fascination of mine (mushrooms were always the most interesting thing I found when triapsing around fields and moors as a child) and sadly the topic isn't covered particularly comprehensively on Wikipedia. Also, I found a couple of books on mushrooms, and thought that adding a few species articles would be fun and easy. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how one reads policy, it's almost a Catch-22 re the use of NFC as determinations/opinions will tend to be more of perception and "feeling" and hence very hard to pin down in an objective way. I think the pics help in this case, you don't. Neither of us is likely able to explain why beyond our gut feeling. And no, I'm not a lawyer: my mom threatened to disown me if I became one (she was kidding -- I think :) Not sure how we can best go about resolving this issue: we could hold a vote, but they're not binding and I dislike them on Wiki for the most part. Maybe if we give it a week and let others chime in? Might work.

I did some more research on Manx, and I found it to be quite interesting. The last native speaker died in 1974, but Manx is going through a revival, which is nice. I hate to see languages die off.

Well, now I understand the fungi stuff. I was always more interested in rocks. Of course, rocks don't go well with steak! :) Besides, languages have been my hobby (maybe even my raison d'être) since my uncle gave me an old (original) Websters back when I was about ten and I fell in love with the etymologies -- who knew that cow and beef actually came from the same PIE word? OK, I'm a geek, I admit it. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the reason that it's best to hold that images are only really required for identification purposes (a single infobox use) or when they specifically tie in to something discussed in the text- they demonstrate the appearance of something where the appearance itself is significant and discussed. For instance, see the use of the image in this section.

Now, I can certainly agree with you on languages. I don't have a knack for foreign languages, but the English language certainly facinates me- place name etymologies are a real interest of mine. Also, the local Cumbrian dialect is something that interested me at one stage- I contribute to Wiktionary every now and then, adding what I know. Rocks were another thing I delved into- my collection really was my prized possession as a youngster. Rocks, fossils, minerals, gems, crystals... I loved them all. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point with American Gothic: the article would be incomplete without it. And maybe that's the crux of the issue. I might need to rethink it all, so if you could afford me a day or two, I'd very much appreciate it.

Languages will always be my true academic love: there's so much to learn about people by the way they use language. I'll have to look at the Cumbrian dialect article.

Re rocks: my daughter found a rock that I'm unsure of: it's sedimentary, but appears to cointain quartz flecks, but while we're close to glacial rocks, it seemed an odd find. It doesn't appear to be granite, but I'll be darned if I know what it is. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J, one thing that really bothers me is that WP:NFC is a guideline, not a policy. To me, given that ""Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." is subjective, that fact that we are talking about a guideline, not policy, is a bit troubling as guidelines are in and of themselves subjective. There's no law against drinking soap, but the common sense guideline is that it's not necessarily a good idea: but yet, it is not forbidden. This is somewhat analagous. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC is a guideline, WP:NFCC is policy. You're quoting the NFCC there. I don't much care for NFC- it's not even really much of a guideline, more just help on interpretting the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lehachziro

I shall cast my pearls elsewhere. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I know no Maltese. il-Boqli means what? (Pietru is self-explanatory). Jim62sch^dissera! 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Il-Boqli is an archaic way of saying 'the curled one', in reference to my lush Neronian curls. However lehachziro is transliterated Hebrew. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes "lehachziro", God will deliver/return (it). Sadly, I have no curls; I'm bald. Oh well. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bald men are supposed to have lots of testosterone. That can't be bad. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so they say. LOL. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jesus

I just made a proposal here - your support is necessary, or could you propose an alternative? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design II

Hi. Edits like this are in breach of our policies. If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you. Please let's not go there. Thank you. --John (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You meant "edit summaries" and given that it was in the same tone as the edit summary written by J Milbnurn No, it's the other way around. Talk is dead, there is no consensus for inclusion. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images. Until there is, they should not be used.) I'm safe in assuming that you will block him too, yes? If the answer is "no", I suggest you take this to a higher authority. Thanks much. (BTW: "let's not go there", sounds like a threat. is it?) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm assuming John will not be blocking me, as I know he is familiar with policy. You may be "getting tired of [my] cocky attitude", but the burden of proof is on those wishing to include the images. Until there is consensus for that, they should not be included, and so, yes, myself and others will continue to remove them. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys should really listen to yourselves. Jim62sch^dissera! 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having been ill for a few days, I missed a bit, but I see Johns been busy warning felloiw admins of blocks in what has clearly become a content dispute that he is clearly involved in. Pretty fucking unreal.

I also wonder if John knows that "Under WP:NFCC Enforcement" it states: "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created." A valid rationale has been provided. That burden, which applies mainly to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, has already been met for at least 18 months. Reminds me of Shadow Play. Jim62sch^dissera! 14:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to AN/I

Heads up- regarding the above...nice to know about these things, huh? --Aunt Entropy (talk)

Naturlich ... Danke. Jim62sch^dissera!

Tried to post "::I left a message for John re his warning on my page ... he seems to have missed the quid pro quo and gone for the qui. Sad, really, but, well ... Jim62sch^dissera! 05:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)", but the itemn I was posting to went *poof*. 05:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then it popped up again. So confusing. Jim62sch^dissera! 05:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID page protection

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking; I protected the page because of an edit war. My own view is that those images are not compliant with the way criterion 8 of WP:NFCC is generally used; since that's as close as we have to policy around here, I'd say that the use of those images in that article is outside policy (though probably not outside the letter of the policy, which is very broad). I didn't remove the images partly because, as the protecting admin, I think that would have been completely inappropriate, and partly because I know there's a pretty wide diversity of opinion on criterion 8 issues around here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please help me!!

If you look at the first sentence of this article, Judaism, you will see I added (a long time ago) an etymology for "judaism" that comes from historian Shaye J. D. Cohen - he traces it to a Greek word, which at the time signified an "ethnos." I did not know how to use Greek characters and whatever I added turned out like this: eáqnov, but it is meant to be the 1st century BCE Greek word for ethnos. Could you edit it to provide Wikipedia's proper Greek spelling, and if possible a link to a gloss, or a gloss, of what "ethnos" meant during that time (post Alexander up to around 0 or the first century CE)? I would really appreciate the help!! Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been pretty ill, so I'm a bit slow on catching up. I'm not sure where the accented a came from (the other's are the "symbol" keys for epsilon, theta, nu, onmicron and a lunate sigma). I'll look into it as soon as I can. Oh, before I forget, "ἕθνος" meant "nation, people"., but τὰ ἕθνη meant "The Gentiles", a rendering of the Hebrew "גויים". Jim62sch^dissera! 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

priceless

Glad someone appreciated it. Leadwind (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve this

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For edits like this and this. You know that I disagree with you to hell and back over nonfree image use, but you're able to remember that the other guy is human too. You remind me of a neighbor and friend of mine, with whom I disagree fundamentally on just about every major political issue. Yet I drink beer with him and would die for his right to defend his mistaken views. Keep being a human being. John (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I accept it proudly. I too have a friend with whom I disagree often, which explains why I was the best man at his wedding, LOL. I don't mind disagreements so long as they're intelligently argued, and I think we've both done that from our respective perspectives ... hmm, "Respective Perspective" could be an album title. But, I digress. I know we'll never agree on this issue, and so it goes: on the other hand we have "Weapons and war " and "Aviation" as common interests, and I too despise "Overlinking in general". Now, how about a beer? :) Jim62sch^dissera! 20:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll have a Guinness please, especially if you are paying...--John (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

I remember you saying you were interested in aviation. Take a look at this article that I've been developing. Tell me what you think. I'm obviously fishing for praise here, but also looking for suggestions. Much of my additions have come from one (admittedly very good) source. Maybe you know others? In any case, enjoy. And thanks for the Guinness, I enjoyed it. I send you a Franziskaner in return. Cheers! --John (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Franziskaner, never had one of those before -- but our choices are somewhat limited in Pennsylvania as we have a very arcane and archaic liquor/spirits control system.

The article looks quite good: you might want to nom it for FA status, I'll support the nom and give you a hand on it. Unfortunately, I can't find the ref I had on this (from an aviation mag (Aviation Weekly? Air Power?), but the article is substantially in-line with my recollection of the event.

I made a few edits -- feel free to disagree, LOL. Take care ... Jim62sch^dissera! 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Pennsylvania is a lovely place, I was there last summer. Did you ever go to New Hope, Pennsylvania? Charming little place. --John (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope is about 30 miles from me -- I go there occasionally for a break. It is quite nice, and always put me in mind of what I imagine a small English village to be like. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, V. When last I looked at the NA article it bore no resemblance to the article PiCo and I wrote and shepherded to FA status. In fact, it had been degraded by so many bible thumpers and others on the lunatic fringe that it looked like a Conservapedia article. Bah. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...in the BUFF...

Re: "BTW, BQ, is it true that BUFFs are cramped, smelly, sweaty, etc? I've never been inside one, but as an aviation geek, I love the plane and I'm just a bit curious"

Interesting that you posed this question while I was flying in one over Texas this afternoon. They are not spacious, but I've been in the T-37 and this thing is quite spacious by those standards. It isn't an airliner or anything but has seating for 10 (6 in ejection seats) with a standard crew of 5. There is only one spot you can stand all the way up in and that is at the base of the ladder. The jet I flew on today first flew in 1961 and others on the flightline were from 1960. Doing the math in my head (and mind you I'm just a newbie with 3 flights under my belt) that makes them about 49 years old. The seat cushions are original equipment and don't have much "cushion" in them. 49 years of guys puking during low levels into their masks, the seats, etc. After a few hours, the smell does become nauseating. I've never gotten airsick before the BUFF, but I threw up after 3 hours in the pattern. Apparently flying backwards with no windows will do that to a lot of people. Just about every military jet is "sweaty" when you get inside because they don't apply power to the aircraft until after the crew gets there (unlike airliners).

In any case, I have to debrief my flight in 7 hours and I need some sleep. G'night. If you have any more questions, just drop me a line. If I can't tell you the answer, I'll just let you know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Flying in a BUFF doesn't sound any too pleasurable, but you guys have an important role in our defense -- although trying to remember that while puking is probably pretty difficult! I suppose, all things being equal, I'd rather be a pilot as you at least can see where you're going. Anyway, you have my appreciation for the job you're doing, just wish you wouldn't get airsick (must he horrible). Take care. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It is a warplane and it wasn't designed to be a pleasure cruise.

A couple of stories:

There was an F-16 that took off and the pilot noticed his engine was running a little hot. After a few more minutes it was reaching dangerous levels, so he turned around and headed home. As he approached the field, he declared an emergency and was told "Roger, you are number 2 behind a B-52 on short final."

"Tower, why am I number 2? What's his problem?"

"The B-52 has an engine shut down."

The F-16 pilot pondered the situation for a moment, then said, "I see...the dreaded seven engine approach..."

During the Vietnam War, an F-4 was escorting a B-52 into his target. While doing that mission, he was having a ball doing barrel rolls, loops, and assorted aerial maeneuvers while taunting the BUFFs, "I betcha can't do this!"

One veteran BUFF driver had enough and said, "Oh yeah! I bet you can't do this!" About a minute later he says, "There!"

"Uh, I didn't see anything," said the F-4 pilot. "What'd you do?"

"I just got up and got a cup of coffee, took a whiz, and shut down an engine and I'm waiting for you to top that!"

Cheers! — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crew comfort isn't necessarily number one, I guess. LOL.

The stories were great, feel free to share more. The dreaded seven engine approach, indeed. As much as I've always loved the F-16, only one engine would make me a bit nervous as a pilot. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

The edit that you reverted rearranged topic order, added acupuncture, and separated phrenology from alchemy. I placed a talk page comment on each of the changes, and they were very minor. What is the complaint? Aside from adding acupuncture, these are not major changes.Likebox (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you also changed theories to phenomena, which is utterly incorrect. The rearranging, as you call it, was of dubious nature and necessity.

Why was "There are also instances where fields once considered scientific are today considered pseudoscience, such as phrenology" removed? Besides, weren't you already snagged for edit-warring on that article? Sometimes, knowing when to stop and take it to talk is a valuable bit of knowledge. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99

Three years ago you added ([[28]]) three events for the year 99. Could you furnish sources for these? As for Musonius Rufus, his year of death appears not to be not known exactly; I have sincere doubts about the replacement of metal mirrors by glass/tin ones in exactly the year 99, and Kanishka may have started his reign in 127 AD. Glatisant (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source was a history book from 1946 (my Mom's, actually) that I know longer have. If the items are incorrect, feel free to remove them. I do appreciate the heads up -- I just wish the book hadn't gotten ruined by water. You might be right about the mirrors; now that I reflect on it, I do recall thinking it odd, but as I had a source... Again, thanks for asking, much appreciated. Cheers. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 794: / Line 794: @@
 ==Nice to know I got a laugh :-) ==
 Thanx. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 19:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
+== New RFC ==
+See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect][[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 11:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)