User talk:Jim62sch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:06, 14 September 2008

Don't Care

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. [1] 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 [2] 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]

Nice

Very nice:

  from learning comes ratiocination;
  from ratiocination understanding;
  from understanding knowledge;
  and from knowledge wisdom

But why do you keep us in the Dark on your User/Discussion page? Please Enlighten use accordingly. The day today, in the Center of the World here (New York City) is Bright and Sunny. But your page here is Gray as it gets.

So why do you keep things here as Black as the Night is invisible?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the gray really that bad? I'm open to suggestions for a better color, although I hadn't really thought about it being gloomy. It's bright and sunny 90 miles to the south-south-west of NYC, too (think big city, cheesesteak sandwiches, a pesky baseball team that nearly caught the Mets :). Jim62sch 18:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noetic necropathy

Just noticed that one.[3] It's a keeper. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't believe it

You have been named an editor to avoid by User:Sadi Carnot here. I bet you're so proud, you're in tears. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsport! Yours ambivalently, dave souza, talk 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been ambivalently ambivalent about you Dave souza. I'm also ambivalent about your name. I'm particularly ambivalent about your last name. Well, Raymond took away a few hours of fun. He is a spoilsport. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I was upset at not being included on the list. Raymond Arritt 18:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm jealous... how does one get on an "editors to avoid" list? MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're on the list all right. It just isn't a public list. ;P - Crockspot 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's the case... I'm just jealous of the public recognition. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphase Sally Field, "he likes me, he really, really likes me". No ambivalence, even, I have recieved an honourable second. Hmm, I wonder what Sandy Georgia did to earn to honours. :)

Raymond, don't fret, I'm sure another editor of Sadi's standing will honour you one day. ;) 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see that as arbcom's job. Why are you so hot to change the policy? No, I mean really, why are you so hot to change the policy? Yeah, yeah, AGF*. Jim62sch 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in keeping things the way they are, and not introducing disruptive changes to the way Wikipedia operates, which is what the current PSTS model does. It's been very hard to convey this fact to people who don't edit in areas where this is a problem and these issues keep cropping up. This language may not be much of a problem now, but the longer it remains, the more problems we are going to have when people start realizing that PSTS does not allow them to cite many reliable sources such as highly technical peer-reviewed journals, published interviews, works of fiction, or philosophical works. COGDEN 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I just do not find this reasoning compelling. And I never have. When I ask, I just get nothing but BS back as answers to any question I have. So, I start to wonder...after all, I am trained as a researcher and academic and I think I have a little bit of an idea about what constitutes a good source and what does not. This sort of bloviating really does not pass the smell test to me.--Filll (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What questions do you have? There is a lot of fluff on the talk page, and I think I've made some really good arguments, but most of them are in the archive pages, and it's hard to find them given all the clamor. COGDEN 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much sound and fury about nothing? LOL. I see no reason to change PSTS no matter how loudly you scream. Jim62sch 01:25, 15 December 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]

Translation Request (la->English)

Hey there, I found your name under the category "Wikipedians who speak Latin". Anyway, I am in the process of working on an article about the Pont Notre-Dame in Paris. There is an inscription from Sannazaro under one of the bridges arches which reads: Jucundus geminos posuit tibi, Sequana, pontes Hune tu jure potes dicere pontificem See here and here for the original source.

Anyway, I don't speak Latin and cannot for the life of me figure it out...I was wondering if you could give me a translation if you have the time? Thanks much! 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go, Lazuli,:

"A happy man placed this twin bridge for you, O Sequana, a man whom you could rightly call 'bridge maker'" -- there's a pun on Pope in there. Jim62sch 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

witty riposte?

In case you did not see it, Jim, I left you this earlier: [4] Hope you see and enjoy it, cheers :-) Peter morrell 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was good. :) Oddly, the play had never appeared on my radar -- and I say oddly as Latin is the perfect language for satire (cf Juvenal, "Difficile est saturam non scribere." (It is hard not to write satire.)). I've ditched the homeopathy article for a while as some of the pro-homeopathy editors are just stupid and definitely lack your expertise. Maybe you can whip them into shape? I hope. You know I'm no homeopathy supporter, but I do want to see a fair article and some of those editors are just grasping at straws and don't seem to really understand the concept at its basic level. It might help too if you an Filll got that dilution article done. Cheers. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No funny

Not funny, inflammatory, trolling. And having the chutzpah to post a link to my page. Shameless. Just because of that I will resume editing these articles. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am totally confusd here. What the heck is going on ?--Filll (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're not alone Filll. See [5]. Jossi, edit away: As of Thursday, I'd given up on homeopathy other than to drop by and look at the chaos from time to time. Enjoy the page. Jim62sch^dissera! 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hi there, I see that you translate from Latin to English and was wondering if you could help me out with translating a motto whenever you have time. What do you make of "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti"? Thanks. --Gibmetal 77^talk 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No enemy/ can take (our/my) places/possesions/ remove (me/us) by assaulting -- although the intended meaning could be a tad different. Where's it from? Jim62sch^dissera! 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's Gibraltar's motto. The translation in the article used to read "Conquered by no enemy" which can be found in many official websites. Not that long ago there was a discussion about the accuracy of the translation and it has now been changed to "No enemy shall expel us" referencing it to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment's website that also uses the motto. The latter seems to be closer to the translation you have provided. Regards --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either could be OK, except that no past tense is used, so the first seems doubtful. The current version does seem better. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in making that clear, Jim! --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope

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

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Jim, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, I realise my comment on the RfB was a bit terse and I apologise -- it was a bad day. Yes, participation in more RfA's would definitely be helpful, and probably the only thing you need to bolster your credentials. On a positive note, you are a very good writer (something I very much appreciate) and appear quite sensible and thoughtful. In other words, you're almost there! :) Jim62sch^dissera! 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Intelligence

Thanks! But I am worried that now my hands are tied. Four proposals is too much to do at once Also, I have argued with some other editorsn and if I move from proposing something to 'dooing it they will accse me of pushing my own POV or trying to own the article,=. I think it is better if I lie low a bit to see what othersnsay. Maybe you have concrete ideas about how to move forward,k one step at a time - I hope you will lead!! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After more than a month, I wandered back. Ugh -- I'm begining to think that homo neanderthalensis was not a dead end. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAMN YOU!

Hey man why not join us at Expelled? Angry Christian (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is tomorrow OK? I've dabbled there, and you're doing a great job -- OK, now I'm damned, probably(?). ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime is always good for your input. Color me crazy but it would be cool for this thing to be shaped up before the film is released. Besides, how often do you get to edit an article about a film made by our generation's "Rebel" :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim when you have time would you read my comments here?. I think for once I have actually managed to make sense. Major strides! Your opinion is most welcomed. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts (and spirit of cooporation), as I mentioned on Dave's talk page I've been doing a lot of yapping so I'm going to listen a while as everyone chime in before I add any more to the conversation. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 21:14, 25 April 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]

R&I Talk page

You should try to avoid using obscene language in your comments. Not everyone cares to read offensive language. These posting are available to the whole world, including children. --Jagz (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Of course, we all have our own definitions of obscene language -- I find racist nonsense to be obscene and highly offensive. In fact, I keep my kids from reading racist spew until I feel that they are mature enough to recognize it for the ignorance it is. But, that's the whole point of being a parent: paying attention to what your children are reading. Again, thank you. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R&I

I have had profound and fundamental misguivings about this page for years. On the current talk page, or the most recently archived page, I laid out a proposal for redistributing all content to three new articles (one actually already exists) with fringe view being presented through articles on the books that propose them. A couple of people were very enthusiastic about my proposal, one had some reservations, and there are two who in my opinion are racist trolls hell bent on preventing any progress. What can I do? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real solution is to draw in well-informed people who are willing to do real research and write. If you have any ideas about how to recruit new editors to work on the article, that would help a lot! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally!

I wanted to thank you for your work and standing up against User_talk:A._B.. Is there anything I can do to help or support your efforts in seeking harassment charges against this user. This user has been offensive to many individuals (mostly women) for at least a year and continues to get away with it. Now this restoring VO's harrassment and almost getting away with it. A.B. has made so many edits that it is hurting wikipedia.org. I know for sure nobody not even the best editors of wikipedia.org could research all the edits A.B. is making. Ask him to blacklist a user or website and it will be done promptly for no reason whatsoever. It is by far and away against all wikipedia.org's policy. We want wikipedia.org to be better and more accurate. We will continue to lose respect and visitors with continued unresearched efforts from editors like A.B. Can I do anything to help raise everyone's attention? Do you really think someone can look at a question, research the information on wiki, review all the talk, prior edits and respond and make a decision every 1-2 minutes of an hour. Research 20-6o websites and edits an hour? I don't. These is not an Internet connection in the world that would load all the pages in that time frame every minute on the hour. Even if there was, the pages would still need to be read and researched right? Thank you for standing tall and let me know what I can do to help.

== Spam from User_talk:A._B. == This user continues to add external links to wikipedia.org that do not meed guidelines. Please check out the quiz on the discussion page. I would like for the user to be warned and then block if it continues. The user is promoting a joke but the joke is designed to benefit a site the user is associated with.

Reply

Terrified of everyone on that talkpage... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because? I'm only terrified (if ever) by people I meet IRL. WP is, well, an amusing pastime. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. No, its the hunted feeling.. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've really never felt hunted on WP, not in the sense of losing my life. Hunted in other ways, yes, but I don't care about that. As I said, WP is an amusing pastime. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I just needed tea. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon and honey, or do you do that "Brit" thing with milk? Jim62sch^dissera! 04:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darjeeling, straight up. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's some good stuff -- but, I have to add a little sugar. Kinda odd as I drink my coffee black, no sugar. Well, at least you don't muck it up with milk. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it

Jim, I'm not entirely sure what you meant by the question regarding "in most cases," but I wanted to clarify my point. I posted the following on the entry talk page. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In most cases" means in all cases where this list is linked in the text of a BLP ... Go to Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and start clicking. I will copy here the wording used for the BLPs in which the petition is mentioned in the entry itself so you get an idea (Note that a vast majority only provide a category at the bottom and make no mention in the main entry):

D'Abrera is listed as a signatory on the petition known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a campaign begun in 2001 by the Discovery Institute.
Robinson is also a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory".
[Henry F. Schaefer] is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement, and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, and a signer of the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution letter, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
Sewell is signatory to the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
Philip S. Skell is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
[Richard Sternberg] is also a signatory to the Discovery Institute's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition.
Tour is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," a controversial petition that has been used to promote intelligent design by questioning evolution.

As you can see in no other BLP do we claim that the "petition promotes intelligent design." The closest to this entry is that of James Tour, and even there it says that the petition "has been used to promote intelligent design." So where exactly do I have to run around changing things?PelleSmith (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... kinda like free delivery of steaks wit and stromboli. :) (It's a Philly joke). I'll wander over to the page in a bit. Cheers. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalcanal

I just noticed your helpful edits [6] 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]

Cla an admin?

The diff you posted on the arbitration committee page was your evidence of Cla passing himself off as an admin. I read it completely differently. He wrote, "...that uninvolved editors and admins like me have noticed...". You read this as meaning he was an admin: "that [uninvolved editors] and [admins like me] have noticed..." I read the subject of the sentence differently. More like "...that [uninvolved editors and admins] like me have noticed..." Meaning he's part of a group of uninvolved editors, some of which are admins, that have noticed a problem. Maybe he was missing a comma or two. I understand what I'm saying may not be clear, although I hope it is. Thanks, Jimbo. --Ali'i 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, Ali'i, but if I wrote "linguists and musicians like me", I'd clearly be stating that I was both vis-à-vis the adjectival use of "like" (having almost or exactly the same qualities, characteristics, etc.; similar; equal). Of course, in my case, it's be true. If I said "linguists and biologists like me", I'd be doing the same thing, but it would be false -- I'm a linguist, Captain, not a biologist :) . That usage goes back to at least 1200 "ÞeTemplate:Latinx Template:Latinxre sang iss lic wiþþ wop" (could I get more obscure? :)

Anyway, I really don't see any other valid usage for the comparative in that sentence. Maybe it was just sloppiness, but given his other comments and the work he's done on WWII articles (his grammar is quite good), it seems hard to put it down to sloppiness. I mean, this isn't like "Eats, shoots, and leaves". Mahalo. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a linguist. I don't know how Cla68's writing skills stand up, but I'm imagining that like 99.999% of us, it doesn't compete with your background. Most of us are doing pretty ~~good~~ well if it doesn't look like it was written by a high school student. --B (talk)

Geez, B, I was complementing him (and I mean that seriously). It just seems odd that he would make that mistake; however, I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again, so I could be wrong now. It's simply that Cla is a good writer and I'd not expect him to make such an obvious error. Of course, on RFAR one gets to explain, so if Ali'i's analysis is correct, I'm sure Cla will will have the same or similar explanation re the usage of "like". I'm not out to hang the guy, I'd just like a sincere apology regarding the "outting" comment and I'll let that potential threat pass away like a duck off water's back -- oh, wait, I have that bassackwards. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, [7] -- not good behaviour. Gopherwood or hemp? Jim62sch^dissera! 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hi again, Jim! Here's another one for you to translate when you get the chance: Montis Insignia Calpe. It's the motto on the coat of arms of Gibraltar. Calpe is meant to come from Mons Calpe. Regards. --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Of the mountain called Calpe" (BTW, Calpe is from Greek Κάλπη, which was one of the seven pillars of Hercules.) Anyway, I'm guessing the mean "land of ..." or "people of ...". Jim62sch^dissera! 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess the translation given in the article as Landmark Mount of Calpe is wrong then. I knew that Calpe came from Greek, but seven pillars? I only know of two... Regards. --Gibmetal 77^talk 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gib, how's it going? Landmark Mount of Calpe would be a really, really loose usage of insignia, and to the best of my knowledge, not suported in Classical Latin. Also, montis is genitive (possessive) so the "of" seems a bit misplaced (note that Calpe would be Calpes in genitive). If I were to translate Landmark Mount of Calpe I'd say lapis montis calpes (yes, lapis means stone, but it's also landmark). However, all that being said, Medieval Latin was weird, so maybe the given translation is OK. (??)

Ignore the seven, I have no clue why I typed that. Brain-fart, I guess. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim62sch^dissera! 17:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

WP:ANI#User:LaraLove's controversial userbox. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And without repeating Lara's mistake of naming names, I'll just point out that starting a battle and then running off the battlefield is cool. Who knew? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

A request for arbitration to look into your conduct has been made here. Please make a statement. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus

See [8] and discussion on the article's talk page (and on User:Orangemarlin's talk page. Yakushima (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to relax

I understand your feelings on the matter, but there really isn't a victory in declaring war on creationism just to make a point. "According to current scientific consensus" is a perfectly good qualifier that doesn't discredit or dilute the claims made in this article in any way. I have no wish to tell anyone, religious or not, that scientific claims are absolute truth. If we start doing that then we hand the creationists the argument. This debate ceases to be about faith vs. evidence and becomes one of faith vs. faith. Serendi ^podous 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Evolution as theory and fact. Yes theory is a fact. Scientific consensus does not exist, since a bunch of scientists do not sit in a room discussing stuff, then formulating some random theory. In fact, it takes thousands of published and peer-reviewed articles, all of which are argued, confirmed, and supported, before a theory is formed. You are misusing the word "theory." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will soon no longer be relevant, since it is almost midnight, but for the record I didn't mention the word "theory." The nebular hypothesis isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. Evolution is a fact because we can observe it in action today. We cannot do similar with the nebular hypothesis, and there will always be a certain amount of doubt involved, particularly as we study the strange orbits outside the Kuiper belt. So I don't really mind using a qualifier in that case. Serendi ^podous 20:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a pissy mood -- I get so tired of the creationist interference.

I'm not getting into the theory/fact/hypothesis discussion. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 15:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. And since the issue is now passed I'm quite happy to let it go. As regards the edit, I should point out that I copied most of it from Oort cloud but, since I wrote most of Oort cloud in the first place, I didn't really regard it as theft. :-) Serendi ^podous 15:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty hard to plagiarise oneself. :) Anyway, the additions and edits you made to the Solar system article were quite helpful, and will be a benefit to students. I've already explained the workings, origin and evolution of the solar system to one of my kids, but I should probably have her read the Wiki article -- not because the info differs from what I've told her, but because seeing it in print may advance her understanding of the topic. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark

The changes are quite spectacular - but very recent. Can't say I'm enamoured of the direction it's going. PiCo (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design RfC

You've been named as an involved party at this RfAR. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Jim, I saw your name on the translation page. Do you have any time for a French to English translation? It's long, a court judgment of about seven pages, and a very accurate translation is needed because there's a dispute about what it means exactly. It's about Muhammad al-Durrah. If you don't have time or inclination, feel free to say no, of course. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SV,send it to me (e-mail?) and I'll check it out. I'll let you know if I can do it justice (since my concussion during the Jan 4 physical assault, I've been a bit dippy :). When do you need it by? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer science/art

Per your comment on User talk:Orangemarlin about computer science being more of an art: Sometimes I think it's more of a black art. And when I'm up all night trying to track down a very stubborn bug, I think it takes something like black magic to make it work. :-) (Didn't want to post this on OM's page, since it would just make him upset again and it really didn't have anything to do with him.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've felt that way about tracking down bugs, too. Especially when you've spent some time looking at the program (and probably at the bug itself) then you walk away for a breather and the answer smacks you right in the forehead. Have you tried the Nostradamian art of peering into a bowl set on a brass tripod? :) Seriously I'd much rather debug my own stuff than programs of other folks sometimes: I worked with a guy who was quite talented, but wrote spaghetti code and eschewed adding comments to his code. Very frustrating! Jim62sch^dissera! 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

Can you please clarify your statement? --Random832 (contribs) 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avon. ? Bard. ?Jim62sch^dissera! 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on RfArb

[9] Is what I wanted to hear, and I'm glad to see it, we all get frustrated, I know more then anyone what that's about. As I keep saying, (but no one seems to believe me), I just wanted the attacks and the insults to stop, and your posting this goes a long way towards easing my concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's hope we can all move on to a better Wikipedia. I love writing articles, but the fighting gets tiresome. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're tellin me *laughs* If you ever want to see a complete breakdown, or two of em, check out the mantanmoreland and Troubles ArbComs.. ugh! Anyway, have a good day. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 12 June 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]

Vulgar Latin

Hello, I've noticed you've posted on the Vulgar Latin page. I have elaborated a research project into the morphophonological / syntactic structure Vulgar Latin from Classical Latin. The project is entitled Grammaire Hypothotique du Latin Vulgaire(Proto-Italo-Roman Occidental Vers Proto-Roman Occidental) - A Hypothetical Grammar of Vulgar Latin (Proto-Italo-Western Romance towards Proto-western Romance) - written in French. In this project I have taken the phonological changes that occurred in Classical Latin towards Vulgar Latin, and I have applied them to the 5 basic noun declinations and 3 basic adjective formations to portray a hypothetical morphophonological / syntactic structure for Vulgar Latin including prepositions, along with a list of nouns, adjectives and particles from which I believe existed during the 5th CE to the 8th CE (Obtained through present day Romance and Classical Latin comparisons). Part II of this project is an elaboration of hypothetical verbs in Vulgar Latin. This is not meant to be a written account of Vulgar Latin but an oral or phonetic representation of what many have existed during this time period. If you are at all interested in taking a look, I am looking for people interested in Romance Linguistics to discuss the project before publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finitoultero (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be very interested. Especially as you're accounting for the oral changes rather than the written, something that is often overlooked. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Future Reference

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

[11] 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) [12] Jim62sch^dissera! 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit

Hello there!

I have begun a new WikiProject that has a very simple goal, to improve Wikipedia by dealing with the articles tagged for copy edit, and am wondering if you are interested. *smiles* This project is not a clone of the defunct League Of Copy Editors because we will not deal with requests for review (that is currently handled by our good friends over at Peer Review).

I expect that this will be a relaxed, happy and casual WikiProject, because participants will be able to take things at their own pace and use the project page to ask other participants for help. A handful of people have already expressed interest at the proposal page, and if you're interested, feel free to sign up at the project page itself and discuss the project at its talk page.

There are now over 4000 articles needing copy edit, and very, very few people working on them, so any help, however small, is appreciated. I am in the process of getting word out about the project, so I'm pretty sure we will be in good stead to fulfill our goals.

Cheers! -Samuel Tan 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be interested. Besides, I need some time away from controversial articles. :) I'll go check out the project page. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Your name wasn't updating on the participants list cos of a silly coding error. *bonks head* It's fixed now! See you there. :) -Samuel Tan 07:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we all makes those coding mistakes -- computers aren't as forgiving with "language" use as humans are. :) See ya there. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bona Fides

Whence the MD? Jim62sch^dissera! 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I'm flattered that you ask. I earned my M.D. degree in 1987 from Universided del Noreste, Tampico, Mexico, and I completed my last year of medical school in Boston, U.S.A. My U.S. clinical education was broadly based and diverse, including John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School prior to undergrad studies, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Columbia Medical School in New York, Indian Health Service USPHS in Talequa, OK., and Harvard Medical School. My post graduate internship (PGY1) was in Nuevo Laredo at IMSS and the indigent "Hospital Civil". My PGY2 was in social service for the Mexican Ministry of Health in rural Tamaulipas, and PGY3-4 was as a Researh Associate with Baylor College of Medicine. Thanks for your interest. Best Regards. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bedford

Thanks, and to repeat what I told Puppy, hopefully this shows there's nothing personal towards you. I'm just trying to make Wikipedia a better place any way I can. Though, to be honest, anything Kurt Weber supports is guaranteed to go down in flames. Such is he the angel of death of all strawpolls :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about posting (or not) for a bit of time on Friday afternoon. I think the main reason I posted it in the end is because I had to for the targets of his attacks who wouldn't post it themselves because they're too nice (not that's a bad thing) - for example, have you ever seen Phaedriel or Alison actually start drama intentionally? Sceptre ^(talk) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 11:01, 11 August 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]

Mediation Cabal

You've been included in a case at the Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. Feel free to put your two cents in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 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]

Question

Does the name Webber, or We66er, mean anything to you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:We66er - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, should it? Jim62sch^dissera! 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feh. It didn't mean a darn thing to me, either. Fairly new user; I haven't checked his contribs in detail but his talk page shows no evidence of anything in particular, and his contribs list shows an interest in science and politics. GRBerry is under the delusion that he's a member of the ID Wikiproject; that he's been editing in tandem with you on some political article or other; and that this is proof I need to change my behavior. I'm not making this up; check GRB's talk page. I was just wondering if there was anything to GRB's delusion or not; it appears he's completely unconnected on this subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with me? Given that I don't edit with anyone (unless I have a page watch-listed and our opinions happen to be reasonably close) it seems about as likely as Hurricane Ike becoming a blizzard over the Gulf. GRB is just another troll following a dead and tiresome meme. Of course, I understand that some of the facilitators for volunteers around this dump think that the meme is valid, but smoking socks will do that. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Creation Evidence Museum. I guess editing the POV out of a double-wide trailer story makes him a member of the cabal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now what? Sorry but I'm a little under par right now, the dentist gave me some pain medication... Do we warn the poor newbie? Watchlist his page and stalk him so if GRB attacks him we can say something? No dammit that will backfire and convince the jerks who spread this meme its True^TM. I am open to suggestions here. I tried talking to GRB and got precisely nowhere. Make a report? Hell, Lar is claiming he wants to help, ask him to try to talk sense into GRB? I dunno. Feh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take this to AN or ANI for input, but I don't want another repeat of the mess when I took Kelly's attacks there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP has adopted the reality show meme. 'Nuff said? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't watch tv, so I'm not sure I understand the reference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bite you. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:04, 12 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]

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]

@@ Line 551: / Line 551: @@
 If you've a wont to, would/could you please clarify/explain the apparent change in personality, perspective, and tone? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
+== September 2008 ==
+Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors{{#if:Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision|, as you did on [[:Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision]]}}. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)