User talk:Jim1138

YTB page and greyfell

The page keeps being edited with inaccurate and biased information. WHY?? Why does this user get to put up inaccurate and outdated, misplaced and biased information without making ALL the information available. ?? Jim1138 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillTheRumor (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Laser efficiency reference

I updated the reference and added the 45% reference back in. 63.243.13.194 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Again

I couldn't figure out the citation. I tried this: .<ref>{{ cite web |url=http://www.laserline.de/tl_files/Laserline/downloads/broschueren/en/Laserline_Image_high_power_diode_laser.pdf |title=Laserline High Power Diode Lasers |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=www.laserline.de |accessdate=June 18 2014 |format=pdf}}</ref> It left the following text in a gray box like a quote or code. Ideas?

Also, I also thought I was going blind. The PDF was changed from when I edited- the red box on the front page used to say "Efficiency up to 45%!" 63.243.13.194 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@63.243.13.194: If a line begins with a space, it puts it into a box. Might also add |page= p. 4? It does have a copyright date vertically on the last page: 2011, so maybe a |date= 2011? . Thanks for doing this! Consider getting an account! It's easy, makes communication and identity easier. It also make you more anonymous as your IP is not easily traced. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Jim, I hope you enjoy your much-deserved Wikibreak! You're an impeccable anti-vandalism warrior, and serve as a great inspiration to all. Look forward to seeing you back here soon, whenever that may be! Take care! and here's some strawberries! —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Something to come back to! Enjoy your Wikibreak and we're all looking forward to seeing you come back and fight more vandalism, making Wikipedia a better place.

BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 13:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

I think you might be mistaken with this template [1], the only edit I had on Talk:Equity and gender feminism is this [2] which removed a personal attack directed at Maunus --Kyohyi (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

User: tree866 There is no copyright infringement. The bio comes from the artist's website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Quistgaard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tree866 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User: tree866 Ok, will be able to submit it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tree866 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand what the consensus on those pages are

You messaged me about my edits to Whitesnake and Dokken saying they are unsourced and have been in violation of the consensus of those pages.

I am not new to Wikipedia. I have closely observed those pages among many others (including the articles of all moderate to very popular glam/hair metal bands) since 2007. For the majority of the history of those pages, the glam metal genre was there in the infobox but are constantly being removed by mostly butthurt users who don't want their favorite bands being associated with an often prejorative genre label. The same goes for Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, W.A.S.P., and Skid Row, all of which have had the glam metal label removed several times from the infobox EVEN WITH sources. Glam metal, even according to Wikipedia itself, is not just "lightweight hard rock with gay-looking musicians with a lot of makeup", i.e. not just the Poison sound. All 6 bands in stake here are associated with the label everywhere in popular culture and on the internet and share a similar sound to all the other bands; there is no logically valid way to say they aren't glam metal. Most people on all 6, including Wikipedia users, would agree. I certainly don't see a majority not agreeing on Whitesnake. I don't need to source glam metal for Dokken and Whitesnake (the other genres aren't sourced either, fyi, nor are they on most articles) because that was ALWAYS there and removed by an unjustified edit a few months prior. I might add sources for those later on just so people stop removing them, but for now, they are not needed.

Furthermore, there is no specific consensus in the talk section of Whitesnake article, nor are there any sources for the other genres in the infobox in the Dokken article, so your reverts are definitely not valid. If you removed my edit, why don't you remove the heavy metal and hard rock genres from Dokken too? I advise you to 1) understand the situation I described above for the articles of these bands, 2) research these bands more and what people associate them with, and 3) research glam metal in general before saying they are not so. 68.99.191.161 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@68.99.191.161: Please cite a WP:RS for your genre edits per wp:V Just because others don't cite sources is no reason for you not to. Jim1138 (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add sources later cuz they should be there anyway, but did you not read anything I just wrote? Have you seen these pages the past seven years? Why are you not removing the other genres then, and just glam metal (which again was there for the majority of the history of those 6 pages)? You also didn't respond to your assertion of a false consensus in the Whitesnake article. 68.99.191.161 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@68.99.191.161: Add your citation with your edit, please. In this case it's not about consensus, it's about citing sources. Jim1138 (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I am gathering sources now before I revert yours (which is trivial cuz this information is everywhere) but before that... I want to know why you are so bent on removing the glam metal status quo but not the other genres which aren't sourced (or at least, why you're not adding sources to those). Shouldn't we be logically consistent here? Do you actually want to help out with the accuracy of these articles and respect the consensus or do you just want to revert everything you do not agree with? You're even keeping pop and hair metal for Whitesnake which are REDIRECTS to glam metal. In addition, stop calling it "my" edits or "my" POV, it is not just "my" anything, the majority of society who knows anything about glam metal, as well as many other users who have kept the glam metal label on those articles would agree. It's also how you cannot say that the other genres that are there are not the work of a single other user. 68.99.191.161 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@68.99.191.161: Others didn't do their paperwork, so you shouldn't either? If you are the long-timer you claim you are, why are you not asking others to cite their sources? Jim1138 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to check facts before you go off blindly deleting truthful facts and making false accusations

My edits were not vandalism. Anyone that does efficient research on those edits I made will in fact find out they were correct. The assumption was quite abrupt. Check your facts before you go off deleting truth. I am a very proud Irish American and deleting my edits was unnecessary. I study Irish American history and I am passionate about my history. Martin Luther king's great grandfather was an irish immigrant as was Muhammad Ali's. John L. Sullivan was the son of Irish immigrants as was Billy the Kid. Eddie Murphy and Rihanna have irish grandfathers. Jimi Hendrix had an irish immigrant as his great grandfather. Macklemore is almost full blooded Irish, and even wrote a song about it. Owen Wilson is a full blooded Irish American as well. I hope this helped you understand my edits. I assure you that I am not vandalizing. Only trying to give the public a better education on my people. Good day.~~USA23~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by USA23 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Ansel Elgort. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alberti cipher may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Alberti Cipher''' was one of the first [[polyalphabetic cipher]]s.]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert the article on Jekyll Island

back to the summaries included. Two edits ago. I'm confused as to why a plot summary of a 1000-page book is considered non-constructive; particularly since I came here specifically looking for one.

Of course its long...

its a summary of a thousand page book. Anything shorter would be an opinion. FEDRESERVE=DELIBERATE THEFT.

Be serious will you. Spend ten minutes, summarize the summary and then put it back up. The book deserves _SOMETHING_ other than a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@69.124.176.137: I didn't remove your large block of text from The Creature from Jekyll Island. I removed your comment on that page: this. You did not reply about the source of the text you added. You should add your own words. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

-- Yup. In complaint of the removal of the original page. So take three minutes and look at the previous revision; if its fine, revert it. I'm flabbergasted that the editing process on wikipedia is backward enough to remove a plot summary from a 1000-page book with a redirect to its author.... its bloody retarded.

@69.124.176.137: Please respond to my queston about the source of the text. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

-- http://truth11.com/2011/09/10/g-edward-griffin-the-creature-from-jekyll-island-chapter-summary/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@69.124.176.137: I don't see that your source is public domain. You should ask on wp:teahouse regarding placing this on Wikipedia. I suspect it would not be allowed. Please don't restore it until you get an answer. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

--

Why; there's no copyright notice on the website; the website is in its own words : "Welcome to Truth11.com | Truth11.com is an alternative media and news site that is dedicated to the truth, true journalism and the truth movement. The articles, ideas, quotes, books and movies are here to let everyone know the truth about our universe. The truth will set us free, it will enlighten, inspire, awaken and unite us. Armed with the truth united we stand, for peace, freedom, health and happiness for all" strongly implying that it wants to spread its message - the content is accessible sans member login...

On what basis (besides uncertainty) would you be presuming it is copyright?

"You should ask on wp:teahouse regarding placing this on Wikipedia." Why don't you? The article is clearly desired - I took the time to copy and paste and section format it. I came here _looking_ for it. The work is a 1000+ pages; a summary would be _clearly_ helpful. The summary is a straightforward summary of the gent's text. So.... why not post it to WP teahouse yourself and ask'em? I'm not a regular user on wikipedia (hence the IP address) -- why shouldn't a regular contributor take the time to straighten out this mess?

To be even more specific, the site has a number of social media sites to republish to sociam media. Come on man. Do something right.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC) 

---

the other editor has struck- through his reversion as possible unfair: see excerpt below.

Excuse me; how is a plot summary from jekyll's island an unconstructive edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted my notice as possibly unfair. However, I am not sure the edit is proper. At least one other editor has made a reversion and added comments on your talk page. I also add some comments. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

He reverted a subsequent comment; asking how this edit was unconstructive. I'm not used to wiki's chat system yet. I'll forward your comments to him, since he is citing you as the main objection i.e. another editor reverted.

--

Like I said, the book deserves a summary. Absent any indication that it is copyrighted, and certes, given the clear indication it is _specifically_ intended to be shared; please take the time to go through whatever wiki's review process is and get _something_ up there. This redirect-revert stuff as I noted, is retarded. A large number of other books have summaries posted. Why should this one be any different?

User:69.124.176.137 is correct that I posted the above comment on my talk page. I should have been more careful. It was meant to be a summary of my longer comment on his talk page and I now see that it really is not quite right standing alone. This is the first part of what I said on the user's talk page. "I am deleting my notice above. It still appears to me that your edit to this article is unsatisfactory and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines but I think it may have been unfair for me to have characterized it as vandalism, especially at that point." I went on with some further comments.

The user is correct that book summaries are included in Wikipedia but they must be in the editor's own words as much as possible and should be written in neutral language. I am concerned that a further, perhaps more detailed, explanation may be needed. That will take more time than the comments back and forth are allowing. Donner60 (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

inappropriate use of the article talk page

I assume you are familiar with the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

These discussions are inappropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=617114870&oldid=617110112

I do not have an account, asserting such things on the article talk page is not useful.

• You are to: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

• You are to: "Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach."

• "Do not misrepresent other people"

• "Do not ask for another's personal details"

• "If a discussion goes off-topic, the general practice is to hide it by using the templates"

"WP:IPs are people too" might also be of interest.

84.106.11.117 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@84.106.11.117: I would say that most are. Like the population in general, some are psychopaths. You hoisted yourself. Learn to live with it. Jim1138 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Inflationary effects lacking in Loan Forgiveness discussion requested by Flyte35 and ElKevbo

Please come over to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Inflationary_effects_lacking_in_Loan_Forgiveness_discussion_requested_by_Flyte35 to discuss the recent edit war, as it is regarding the same type of edit as was done just now.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am consolidating discussion of 2 different Wikipedia pages to the talk page of one of them (for simplicity), simply because they involve the same issue; there was an edit was between myself and 1 editor over on the College Tuition in the United States page, and then over on the Higher Ed bubble page, myself and 2 other editors edit-warred. As you are 1 of the 3 editors, I'm acting in good faith and notifying you of the consolidated discussion -even though it will drastically increase the odds that the 3 of you can 'gang up' on me. Note: I did not have to notify you of the other edit war, but I did -even knowing I may get ganged up on by 3 registered editors. Please know that when you remove a truthful, on-topic edit that is *properly sourced*, then it pushes other editors like myself to not want to become registered. So, your actions here are counterproductive, but I will assume good faith: the link in question is right above.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

George Khutsishvili

Everything that I wrote for George Khutsishvili was correct Please return the original version ,That I have created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigadevanozishvili (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As Bgwhite (talk · contribs) stated: "Again, Wikipedia is not a CV where we list everything. Don't need a list of articles, give a link. Make sure of references". Please address that before restoring. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Whitesnake

Rate Your Music is not a reliable source. I removed the Allmusic source because it cited "styles", not genres, and Allmusic "styles" relate to any genre that band has touched on at some point, maybe only briefly. These can be rather numerous and they are not suitable for a Wikipedia infobox, which is designed to aim for generality. If the genres in the genre field on the Allmusic page match the genres in the infobox, then by all means re-add the cite. Genres are troublesome and I wish we didn't have the field in the infobox at all. Sometimes hidden notes can help, telling potential genre trolls to discuss the changes they want to make. Whitesnake has at times been a bit unstable, but those three genres seem to produce the least fuss. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Would you please add a source for your changes? Again, I really don't care what the genre(s) are, but it should have a source as it has been a problem in the past. Adding a hidden comment does not work nearly as well as a citation. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes. I have reverted to the long standing genres. If you want to add citations to those, please go ahead. Somebody added glam metal with no discussion and no source. You added arena rock and hair metal (glam/hair metal is just a subgenre of hard rock/heavy metal and arena rock is arguably not a genre anyway - much discussion on this) also with no discussion and a source which wasn't suitable, as I have explained. The IP changed it back to glam metal, claiming a consensus which does not exist. You changed it back. I have reverted to the original version. As I say, if you want to source those three genres, please do so, but I am not obliged to source a version of an article that existed before people fiddled about with it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just found a very good book source that covers the history of the band and makes clear reference to all three of those genres, so in the interests of concluding this, I've added it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Wow, citing a book! Much appreciated. Again, I have no interest what the genre is, just that it would be cited. I wouldn't know what Whitesnake is, if it bit me. Case closed until the next genre warrior. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I admit, I couldn't help myself and filled in your citation refs. Jim1138 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I'm always happy to see someone filling in my refs if I haven't had time myself. I confess I had no idea the two authors had their own articles! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Niger Armed Forces

Jim1138,

I have temporarily removed the text and I am presently reorganizing it in MS word because it is easier for me to do so. I will re-introduce it in few hours as soon as I am done...that is if you stop undoing my work...You can verify tomorrow and if the article is not improved, organizationally and content wise, you can then undo what I have done. But for now, please let me work!

Niger Armed Forces --- Ongoing improvement, please stop undoing my

Hey,

The article, as it stands presently is (very) badly organized, quite outdated, lacks details and cohesion...So I have taken time to improve it...To make it easier on my eye, I sometimes remove content, edit it on the side and reintroduce it. That's what is happening right now. I have been at this for the whole afternoon and your undos are counterproductive....So please, give me few hours to organize it and you can check tomorrow for consistency...If there is a bias in the content or the article has not been improved, then you can undo it...but for now, let me work 01:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Niger Armed Forces

Ok, I am adding Edit Summary, even though it will be time wasted for me because do save and view my edits frequently. As for citations, if you check, I have only added more citations and have not deleted anything...But ok, I will put the {{under construction}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfNiger (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of text of Qaiser Abbas

""I deleted all the text from the qaiser abbas page because there is no bats man name the same but Qaiser Abbas is a trainer who give training to different organizations."" unsigned 02:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

my question to you??

Why you deleted my details... What was wrong in that??

1. REDIRECT Target page name unsigned 02:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Algeciras

Jim1138, football team of Algeciras relegated to Tercera Division, fourth level of Spanish league after losing play-out in 2013-14 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.14.76.202 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Overthanked!

Sorry, I got mixed up! The thank-you was actually meant to be regarding 24.96.14.147. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I can use all I can get! Thanks for your addendum. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You're v v welcome. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Hello Jim1138. I'm providing a source for the change in article, Ann Eliza Young. But it not give me time to put it. Sorry. The reference in the change is: Wallace, Irving. The Twenty Seventh Wife, (México: Grijalbo, 1961) pp. 402-409. In several sections. I appreciate your support. Thank you! Jfiguerc (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protected

Your new friend has a habit of hopping IPs and continuing his vandalism sprees on people's talkpages - I've therefore protected this page from unconfirmed editing for a couple of days. Let me know if you'd rather I removed the lock. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're sure? Self-sacrifice is noble, but he'll carry on vandalising other pages as well, regardless - as far as I can tell, he runs some sort of automated script, given the speed and repetition of his edits. Still, if you want the protection gone, say the word. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I wouldn't call it a sacrifice. S/he did hit only my talk page in the last incarnation. I do quite a bit of RC-patrol, and IPs should be able to point out my unfortunately all-too-frequent blunders. Cheers & Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it off again. I'll try and keep half an eye on your page for you in case he starts up again (just had to PP my own talkpage since he seems to have fed my name into his script now as well. Ho hum...). Yunshui ^雲_水 10:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Filthy anti-Semite. Stop denying Jewish history.

Filthy anti-Semite. Stop denying Jewish history.

@186.95.154.195: I love you too! Jim1138 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Lake Michigan

Reverted good faith edits by the other use but keeps adding unnecessary information. I warned the admin already and let them deal with the user. I'm out. Backendgaming (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bennett S. LeBow

Jim,

Ok, I can live with the reversion. But I have a question. Since you reverted my post as being uncited, would you be kind enought to answer the following question?

The first 3 paragrahs of the "Leobow" article, in their entirety, under the "education" heading, are not cited at all. Should these also not be deleted as being uncited, or else properly cited? Frankly, I do not think there are citations for some of the information. Thanks, and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algyx0262 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Algyx0262: Are you arguing that since one thing is uncited, nothing needs to be cited? Or, that I should go through the article and cite everything myself? Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Just asking a question: doesn't the material following the paragraph heading "education" need to be cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algyx0262 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Algyx0262: Citing would be highly desirable. You could flag it with a {{Citation needed}} (shortcut {{cn}}) or preferably, find sources yourself. See WP:NOCITE and WP:Citation needed for policy. For completely uncited articles {{Unreferenced}} Deletion should be considered based upon issues discussed in NOCITE. BTW: please sign your posts with four tildes "~~~~" So others know who's talking? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

milford track

a bit bitey i thought. Greglocock (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Greglocock: Yes, I would agree. Having a bit of a bad day [3] Jim1138 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and sometimes wiki doesn't help ! cheers greg Greglocock (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Greglocock: Thanks for the note. I do sometimes need a whack along side the head! Jim1138 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim interesting prognosis.

Can you please cite how it was biased, the entire article needs to be brought in line.[41][42]uring the 1990s, much of the Jewish-black conflict centered on Jewish involvement with the slave trade. An early controversial comment on that topic was made by professor Leonard Jeffries in a 1991 speech in which he said that "rich Jews" financed the slave trade, citing the role of Jews in slave-trading centers Rhode Island, Brazil, the Caribbean, Curaçao, and Amsterdam.[27] His comments drew widespread outrage and calls for his dismissal from his position. This for instance is heavily pov i believe it should be better edited to reflect it was alleged slave trade involvement and criticism.Loveandpeace=happy (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Drew campbell

It sure appears that this user has some sort of WP:CIR issue with baseball. The name you reverted from Bloomington, Indiana? He has an article started on the guy, whom I cannot even find any evidence even exists, much less as a serious major league prospect. See User:Drew campbell/sandbox. John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: There are quite a few intriguing individuals lurking about Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Indeed: possibly a few too many. (Except me, of course ...) DBaK (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bellingham, Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Paul's Academy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TrueChinaHistory. There are definitely some issues about some of these identifications, but at the same time there was an important Muslim influence in China. It will take me time to fix all this. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Frame language article

Just FYI on the frame article I've made I think some very substantive points that the other editor never responded to. I followed the process for doing a merge very carefully. No one replied to the discussion I started for months. It is true that someone replied on the other article and I missed that but the template was clear with a direct pointer to the place on the talk page where of the article to be merged, exactly as the template says to do it and no one replied there and I forgot to check the other page. Then weeks (at least) after the merge Auger reverted it with no explanation. Here are my arguments why the merge should have been done and should still be done. Frame and Frame language are the same concept. It's exactly analagous to rule and rule-based system and object (in computer science) and object-oriented language. It's ridiculous to have one article for the singular and one for the plural. Every point that was in the Frame article was in the Frame language article. And the Frame language article after I editied it (I started with that one because it was in better shape to begin with) had solid references. The ONLY thing in the Frame article was a very mediocre attempt at an example. But whoever wrote that had only the most basic understanding of what an ontology or frame are like in actual use. The description could be for ANY abstract data type, a struct in C or a table in a RDBMS. I added an example from the Friend of A Friend ontology and a pointer to that article to the Frame language article. The FOAF is a standard example of an OWL ontology (the modern version of a frame language) that is used in most overview books on Semantic Web technology (SPARQL, OWL, etc.) and it has examples that clearly show how frames and frame languages are different than conventional programming. The Frame article has no inline references, the stuff it says about Minsky is in the frame language article and as I said it's nonsense to have essentially one article for a concept and another for the plural of the concept. Augur has never responded to these arguments. His response is essentially "there was good stuff in the Frame article" that's not an argument. I've never edit warred but in this case I felt and still feel justified. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the section of the article I was referring to. This was clearly linked to in the merge proposal. As you can see no one has responded to the points I made: Talk:Frame_language#Proposal:_Merge_Frame_Article_with_Frame_language But in the other places where there has been discussion the response to my points has been the equivalent of just gainsaying the points without rational argument. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that you and Augur are having a discussion on Talk:Frame (artificial intelligence)#Merge with Frame Language?. Jim1138 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Things Jim1138 likes

Things jim1138 likes doing: 1) traveling the world in order to experience taking a dump in new and exotic cultures. 2) cross breeding hummingbirds with cats in the hope of creating a super race of flying cats 3) deleting facts about Alan Herd off his Wikipedia page 4) baking cookies 5) eating cookies 6) getting mashed on ecstasy and raving all night