User talk:JimWae/Archives/2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


One relatively new & inexperienced editor likes exact population figures in ledes of articles, even if they disrupt the flow of sentences, break refs, & make reader's eyes glaze over

The information I have submitted is from the United States Census Bureau and is the latest and most updated information. You are continually reposting old and general estimates. I will continually post accurate information about population estimates as this is my background. Thank you. Mattscards (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are correct in saying the numbers are probably not accurate, however the United States Census Bureau is the expert in this case. The numbers I am giving is is the latest information from the experts. By rounding them off you are actually changing the numbers given by the experts. This is what people see. Also JimWae, your comment on my posts are not going to stay on Wikipedia tells me that you are committed to deleting my posts and I take offense to this. I am and will be committed to deliver accurate information as I am learning all the complete techniques of posting. Other than your dislike for new editors, JimWae, is there anything else about posting you feel is necessary before posting? I plan on updating all the metropolitan areas and city populations. Thank you.Mattscards (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not try to make this a personal issue, nor take my response as personal. You made repeated reverts without any explanation & that is not how a good encyclopedia gets written. If you have indeed abandoned the "more accurate" argument, what can be the point of your commitment to making these changes?--JimWae (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not giving up the argument that anything is more accurate than the United States Census Bureau. I have posted my reasons in the latest addition in WT:USCITY. I also am putting the facts together to include another fact with New York City's population that puts NYC out above the rest of the cities. As far as personal, I think you have something personal against me, and that is evident in some of your posts. Again, I have stated I came on a little too strong, and I admitted that. As far as my commitment, I am here now, I am not going anywhere. I will continue to work with people just as yourself because I feel we all have one common goal here. Mattscards (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard from you in a few days... I wanted to try to discuss this with you again as it seems our discussions have stalled. JimWae.. I wanted to let you know of my intentions of changing some things on the NYC article and so you can be informed beforehand. It seems you have me in your cross hairs and what I don't want is for me to post my accurate numbers and you delete my posts and you and I start to get into a war. I feel strongly about the opening line having the actual population of the city. I understand you think this is boring and people look past this..... and I think you are right.. for the majority of the people. But is this bad? I don't know the actual numbers but I feel maybe 90% or more may not look at the actual numbers. BUT.. It is what this represents. The actual number tells you in the opening statement that what you are about to read from there forward is accurate information. I feel if you generalize and estimate, a percentage of people will view the information there on out with caution.. JimWae, I hope we can agree on this. I plan on making my changes Tuesday, January 5. Thank you. Mattscards (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What you call the "actual numbers" (which is NOT the actual population) are already in the article twice three times. The more memorable, and more accurate rounded number is appropriate for the lede, which is an overview of the article & has the very same source that you cite (so is just as well supported). Giving an 18 month-old estimate to the nearest person is false precision & that is the impression one gives to a sophisticated reader. I see nobody who supports your version, & several who say the rounded figure is better. As such (and having sensibly abandoned the argument of greater accuracy), I see no reason to have the unrounded number in the article three times and the more memorable rounded one removed from both the article & the lede. In short, you have not made a case for your version, and I will continue to oppose it unless you can show support for your version. --JimWae (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I respect that we disagree. You have one thing in your favor. It is that your way is there already. Even though it is 100% wrong and looks bad. I have a team of lawyers I speak to almost daily and they have told me it isn't what happened is what stands up in court. It is what everyone agrees happened that stands up in court. I think this is where you and I are at. You have been here longer and you are more respected than I am. I am not going away. I liken this to pushing a car up hill. It isn't going to be easy. But I believe in this. Thank you. Mattscards (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi JimWae, please take a moment and give your opinion regarding the wording on estimated population figures at Talk:Houston#Population in lead for a consensus. This is regarding Mattscards edits regarding his exact numerical figures in the lead section of city articles. He is now engaging in edit wars on Houston and other articles. Thanks! —RJN (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:US 1865 map

Well, Kansas used to be gray to draw note to the Bleeding Kansas ordeal. Changes to the image description box make that seem arbitrary, though... Okay, so I fixed that. I don't see what's wrong with Arizona, it's borders are pretty accurate (note that back then, as is now, Arizona's northern border was defined by the 37°00'20 line of latitude, though it extended all the way to California and covered what is now southern Nevada). The truly more glaring error is the borders of the Nebraska territory, though the definitions of those territories changed a lot through the 1800s.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Alright, I just fixed a lot of other problems too (the borders of the Dakota, Nebraska, and Washington Territories; I also pushed the border between Nevada and Utah farther west to conform to the other topical maps).--Porsche997SBS (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, Thanks for doing that. Before 1861, what is now Arizona & New Mexico was just the New Mexico Territory. The Confederacy claimed mostly just the southern portion (making a "border" that ran East-West, not North-South) calling that the Arizona Territory. But by 1865 (as in title of image) virtually all of it was already returned to Union control--JimWae (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's just an upload/server update error. It should be good now. The title doesn't matter because the date's not refereed to in the articles its in. Plus, the control of the Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma territories was always disputed, as both Union and Confederacy claimed it. No real military action occurred in those largely unsettled territories and neither side had good reason to battle for its control and occupy them. Surely many (possibly most) of their settlers were actually loyal to the North. However, I chose to paint those territories in Confederate colors simply because the C.S.A. claimed it at all and slavery was legal in them.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I should correct myself. The New Mexico Campaign was held by the Confederates to secure their territories in the west, though it was minuscule in comparison to the eastern theaters and ended rather ambiguously (the Battle of Valverde was the largest skirmish). Also, several small battles were fought in Oklahoma (the largest being the Battle of Honey Springs. Still, neither side invested much into fighting for the disputed territories.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to rename Common Era

As you have shown an interest in this topic in the past, please see talk:Common Era#Requested move. --Red King (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits at Zeno's paradoxes

Hi Jim, at Zeno's paradoxes, you restored, then removed again the Russell quote, was that intentional? Paul August 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though Russell mentions Zeno's paradoxes, it is not completely clear whether his comment applies to them - while it is clear that he meant Kant. Maybe there's a better source, or maybe Russell held that Zeno still had a point--JimWae (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
OK just checking. It seems fairly clear to me that Russell is including Zeno's paradoxes here but I won't dispute the matter. Paul August 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too, but we cannot tell for sure from that text. Russell must have discussed Zeno somewhere else also. --JimWae (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From the Zeno of Elea article:

He is best known for his paradoxes, which Bertrand Russell has described as "immeasurably subtle and profound".<r e f>Russell, p. 347: "In this capricious world nothing is more capricious than posthumous fame. One of the most notable victims of posterity's lack of judgement is the Eleatic Zeno. Having invented four arguments all immeasurably subtle and profound, the grossness of subsequent philosophers pronounced him to be a mere ingenious juggler, and his arguments to be one and all sophisms. After two thousand years of continual refutation, these sophisms were reinstated, and made the foundation of a mathematical renaissance..."</ ref>--JimWae (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But see: --JimWae (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration called re Zeno's Paradoxes

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Zeno's_Paradoxes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—


Why isn't your message signed - and why are you the one to let me know? What happened to mediation? --JimWae (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you have REQUESTED arbitration - your request has not yet been CALLED--JimWae (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate of Vancouver

That's actually a valid point. It's been so warm there recently, they actually had to ship snow in from somewhere else so there'd be enough for the Olympic skiers to ski on. HalfShadow 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I know all about that - but there is no lack of snow for the events. Btw, articles are not message boards, so are not signed & contributions should be sourced to reliable sources.--JimWae (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh shit; did I sign that? Sorry. HalfShadow 19:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeh, Ok. But you also used the word "ironically", and "problems" is pretty vague & too misleading in this case--JimWae (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It is kind of funny, though. 'They had to borrow snow from another mountain'. I laughed. HalfShadow 19:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

March Coordinator elections

Hi there! Have you ever considered putting your name in the ring for Military History coordinator? I'm asking several long-time ACW cluster folks and you're high on my list of valuable editors. No hard feelings one way or the other, but consider serving in this way. BusterD (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits too 2010 Winter Olympics

Yes those articles did not say 'most environmentally destructive', but it did clearly say 'environmentally destructive' so adding a cite failure isn't the proper way to deal with that issue. The proper way is to remove the most. As it could've just been a word added by an editor.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That would not have made a well-structured sentence - and the way it is now is still very poor sentence structure. Remove all the superlatives and you are left with "Some environmental damage will be done" - pretty lame--JimWae (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be a good sentence to me, ;"According to critics, despite claims of the "greenest Olympics" ever, and statements about "sustainability", the 2010 Olympics are "environmentally destructive"".
Despite claims of the "greenest Olympics ever", and statements about "sustainability", according to critics, the 2010 Olympics will still result in damage to the environment.--JimWae (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen

FYI Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen Ansgarf (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi there! I've seen your name around the Long Island article a fair bit, and finally decided to stop by and say hi. You do some awfully good work, and I have to wonder: why aren't you an admin?--~TPW 05:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Zachary Taylor
Strong agnosticism
Joseph Stalin
Atlantic Avenue (New York City)
Astronomical year numbering
Weak agnosticism
Naval battles of the American Civil War
Agricultural Land Reserve
North Carolina
Greater Vancouver Regional District
Houston, Texas
World War I
Adolf Hitler
Historicity of Jesus
Add Sources
9/11 conspiracy theories
Dowling College
Long Beach, New York
Alfred the Great
Dix Hills, New York
Sam Sullivan
Lloyd Harbor, New York

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Why US army in German tank in Canada article?

Er, not the US Army, they're Canadian. The Canadian Forces train in Texas prior to deployment to Afghanistan. So it's more like Canadian army in a German (built) tank, training in the US... - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That needs to made explicit then - especially in Canada article where Texas was in caption--JimWae (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

You seem to have been one of the major contributors to American Colonization Society, and I am very sorry for the setback to this article. I tried to clean it as I went, spent hours on it, but the problems are just too extensive, and I can't be sure that I am finding all of the content he has pasted from copyrighted sources. It's hard going tracking back that far, and much of the content he introduced to the article is still there. Sorry. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Leopard C2 tank

This is a picture taken during my training exercise in Texas with a Canadian Leopard C2 from the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada. De Grasse (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe: |alt=Canadian Leopard C2 tank firing during Canadian Forces training exercise in desert in Texas --JimWae (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I did a quick check of Canadian Forces articles. None mention Texas as a training centre/er. Perhaps you can find a source (such as for that and add it to articles--JimWae (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

cm vs mm

Please see Template talk:Infobox weather#cm vs mm. Peter Horn User talk 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

edits by Bull Market

Welcome to wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your stay. I have reverted several of your edits because Wikipedia does not use US style for quotation marks. Please see WP:LQ--JimWae (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your above comment:


I appreciate your taking the time to revert a series of my edits because you mean well, however, I get the distinct sense that you did not actually look at each edit as a unique instance, and that you therefore acted out of assumption, and therefore edited with a larger brush. Take, for example, the edit to the page Israel. There, you reverted what really was the end of a sentence within a quotation to instead leave readers with no period at all. I have not had the chance to examine each edit but this is a fine example to illustrate the point. Bull Market 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I made 1 mistake. however, just reverting my mistake indicates you were still not following WP:LQ. The cited text in Israel even has a comma there. Had you been aware of WP:LQ already? I did look at each of my edits ahead of time (missing the absence of a period in that one case). Note that not every one of my edit comments were the same. Your edit comments(for most of your edits that I reverted) indicated you thought you were "correcting" things that were not wrong - but most were merely stylistic changes that went against WP:LQ.--JimWae (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada -- your opinion sought


Please have a look (as an editor who seems interested in the article) at Monarchy of Canada, where there is currently some disagreement about wording in the lead. Thanks. -- (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

John Manyard Keynes and actual quote linking Avaricious and Jews as example of firsthand statement which might reflect antisemitism

Hi, JimWae. I am writing for some help related to an issue concerning historical evidence of possible antisemitism. (I know you focus on the Jesus page and other philosophy related pages, and hope you can take a moment to consider this issue-- I'm hitting a road bump on the Keynes page where I am seeking to include an actual quote from Keynes using his exact words: "I do not mean that Russian Communism alters, or even seeks to alter, human nature, that it makes Jews less avaricious or Russians less extravagant than they were before."[1] But, someone reverted that inclusion. I re-added it because 1) it is historically accurate (the chosen words of Keynes) and 2) none of the articles that are references to Keynes or discussions of antisemitism and Keynes mention or state this source (his own words) or this very telling quote. It is not intellectually rigorous to exclude this hard fact, if anything, it is revisionism and historical manipulation to exclude it. Thank you for your looking into this and any assistance you may lend to helping to create a full, fair, and accurate provision of firsthand information about Keynes in the subtopic of his page related to racism or antisemitism. Bull Market 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Bull Market 23:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After a pretty quick look: 1>"One could glean" lots of things from lots of things, but to make an entry in an encyclopedia one will need a more reliable source than what "one could glean". Introducing the "editorial voice" into an article is very often an indication of possible WP:NPOV issues. 2>When Keynes or any author says "I do not mean....", it will be difficult to make any strong case that what follows is in any way the opinion of the author, even if it raises alarm bells.--JimWae (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Jim, regarding this revert, please read WP:DRNC:

Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

In general:

  1. Stop. Think.
  2. Try to edit the page to better incorporate the edit in question
  3. If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it
  4. Explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work. Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else.
See also

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am preparing my comment and then will follow according to WP:BRD (which does not even require me to initiate the talk - which I had actually already intitiated yesterday --JimWae (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is from BRD:

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

If people start making non-revert changes again, you are done: The normal editing cycle has been restored.

People (Tryptofish specifically) did make non-revert changes again, so you were supposed to be done, but you reverted against never-the-less, directly contrary to BRD. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "B". It stops after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.--JimWae (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

absence and babies

Was it something that was unclear regarding the absence and babies section? Did I not give ample explanation? Yes, babies are considered atheists according to Smith. Yes they are considered atheist even if they can have a conceptual understanding. If you don't hold a positive belief you are considered an atheist. Theist and Atheist hold the entire spectrum. He stated that quite clearly. I gave you the info you requested, three times, I even gave you extensive quotes to show you. As for rocks and other inorganic matter. They are irrelevant because they cannot hold a belief. I'm inclined to ask you if you understood the implications of my answers? And why would he include rocks? Can they form thoughts? One would think that was a pre-requirement. -- Muthsera (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot conclude that he excludes the newborn, nor can we conclude he includes then - for he never uses the words newborn, baby, babies, nor infants (except the last in a different context). He does use "child" and "children" to refer to them as atheists, but he at one point qualifies child as "the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved". You seem to be assuming that "being able to grasp the issues involved" means the kid has become a theist - but his becoming an atheist is just as possible.
If one exempts rocks because they cannot hold a belief, then why include newborn? If newborn can hold a belief, then why not bears & fish? JimWae (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Smith uses this is only to show the disconnect of the Theist belief that you can be a "Christian/Muslim/etc Child". It is only meant to show that you need to hold a positive claim to be considered anything. This is where you drop out I believe. Because you seem to think Atheism should be some sort of affirmative action. It is not. It is simply an absence of belief. Or at least, thats what Smith argues when he uses Implicit. He then goes on to claim that you can be opposed to religion (ie Explicit) once you are able to hold a positive claim for theism. Babies without the developed ability to show a positive claim cannot therefor hold a positive claim of theism. Inorganic matter, fish, bears doesn't come in at all because they can never hold an affirmed belief for theism. They are then by definition "without belief" ie "Atheist". But these arguments are really just to underscore that to be a "Theist", you need to have form a positive action, you need to make yourself a theist. It is not something which comes by default. I hope this answers it for you. As it seems to me you want to have an explanation of affirmative action towards atheism which really isn't there. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

South Farmingdale Station

Here's some info supporting the existance of South Farmingdale (LIRR station) in May 1873([1] and [2]). There's alaways the possibilty that some of what Robert Emery said might contradict Vince Seyfried. ----DanTD (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The support is statement of Farmingdale being "on the timetable 5/1873", yes? I think I was reading just yesterday about timetables coming out before trains started to run. In this case, it appears track to Bethpage Junction was not done until late June. When reading Seyfreid, keep in mind that Bethpage Junction could be considered to be in Farmingdale. --JimWae (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe Stewart thought South Farmingdale(on Main Street) was going to be up earlier than it was built. The article does mention that a station house wasn't around until the Summer. Incidentally, I've noticed old maps that have a completley realigned section of the Babylon Extension of the Central Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Seyfried is source for May 1873 timetable. Bethpage Junction was not originally planned as a station, was an accommodation for transferring passengers

Central Park (Jerusalem): First listed on the timetable of May, 1873, and last listed in October, 1876. As of February, 1874, there was neither depot nor freight house, but Mr. Smith, the agent, used one of the rooms in his own house for a public waiting room. The station was located on the east side of Stewart Avenue in today's Plainedge. A side track was installed for freight cars in January, 1874, and a swing pole for farmers to load hay and straw onto the freight platform.
Bethpage Junction: First listed on the table of June, 1873; abandoned October 1, 1877. Located at the junction of the Central R.R. right-of-way with the L.I.R.R., where the Bethpage Branch used to branch off. No known station building.
Bethpage: Passenger service opened as an accommodation to farmers beginning November 9, 1874, with one round-trip a day. During 1876 and 1877 summer service only was provided. Station appears to have been located at Winding Road and Battle Row, Old Bethpage, just north of the big Stewart Brick Works. There is no evidence of a station building.
Farmingdale: Station first listed May, 1873. Station building erected in August-September, 1873. Train service discontinued June 1, 1876. Station located on the east side of Main Street just south of W. C. Dupignac's Hotel. Mr. Dupignac, Jr. served as station agent. A freight house was erected by the railroad in April-May, 1874.
Ah, so now we've cleared up Farmingdale, a.k.a.; South Farmingdale. ----DanTD (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


be careful with the 'undo' button. Apart from the 'once in 5 years' edit, I most importantly substituted the infobox template in, because the same data appears at Climate of Vancouver, so it is especially code-saving to include the template. In addition, I added citations where needed (i.e. low falls below freezing for _ days). the 'once every five years' comes from this source (Environment Canada), which states very clearly under 'days with maximum temperature' that the high soars above 30 C on an average of 0.2 days per annum. Either the high reaches 30.0 C or it does not, and if it does, the day count ups by one and is included in the average, which is from 1971-2000. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 21:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Once in 5 years is absurdly predictive when one should be talking about an average. I tried to reinsert the weather box - but I must say it took a long time to find it - and the [HIDE] "button" is also hard to find. Cite style did not need to be "fixed" and makes it extremely difficult to tell what edits have been made --JimWae (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I let your decision regarding the 'once in 5 years' stand, but I fixed the other parts. how is it predictive when we say 'on average, once every 5 years', when the source says an average of 0.2 days where the high punches 30? what do you mean by your last sentence? if you are referring to the piles of citations, the formatting is changed only so editors can have an easier time viewing the code, and of course does not affect anything in the article. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The earlier weatherbox in Climate of Vancouver was better organized than the present one - and the show/hide button is now hard to find - and also moves around (show is not where hide was on screen)--JimWae (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
        • also the extremes are gone - I can see not putting extremes in the Vancouver article, but if someone goes to Climate of Vancouver they obviously want more info--JimWae (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
see my reply on the talk page at Climate of Vancouver. I thought that replying there would make the point more visible --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reconstruction Era of the United States

I appreciate your edits on the article. The Confiscation Acts and the fugitive slaves escaping into Union lines led up to the Emanicipation Proclamation. That is important. I can mention these events as a lead up to the Emanicpation Proclamation. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)}

They are more relevant to the EP than to the Reconstruction article - except for perhaps a brief mention (rather than a whole section)--JimWae (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Anno Domini

I wrote that Kepler dated his treatise, Astronomia nova, 1609 "Anno Aerae Dionysianae", as a synonym for "Anno Domini". For you, it was a mistake. Any informations will be welcome. Thanks. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Mainly - they are not synonyms. I see now that both are chronologically equivalent, not just common era. Certainly Era of Dennis is far less prominent. There are about a dozen names that have been used - only 2 have any present currency. While some are virtually synonymous with others, these 3 are not. --JimWae (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's the Kepler - but the reason is not verified --JimWae (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Smallref

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Smallref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

FYI, Template:Smref (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which you wrote, was repurposed into a redirect to this template. (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln and Manifest Destiny

Thanks for this edit, fixing something I did in haste. I don't know what I might have been thinking. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Victoria Day MM/DD/YYYY format

Seeing as you've discussed this particular issue before at the Canada Day article, I'd ask that you come join a current debate and discussion going on at the Victoria Day article. The same editor who first arbitrarily changed the date format from MM/DD to DD/MM at Canada Day, User:Miesianiacal, did so at Victoria Day (in 2009), and is now arguing that his arbitrary change established a new consensus simply because it wasn't noticed for 1 year (his edit comments did not reflect that he had changed the date format). I'd appreciate it if you could join discussion there. — CIS (talk | stalk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor is refusing to make the change on Canada Day. You made the change in November and he reverted it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I never refused to make the edit at all. Jim & CIS, please see what I actually said at my talk page (if either of you are at all interested, that is): User talk:Miesianiacal#Good form. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But why should we have to take everyone's valuable time to have a discussion on every page? There is A guideline that applies to every page. Let's follow it & avoid annoying one another. And, yes, I agree, the wording of the guideline needs to be tightened - but it is still entirely clear what was intended--JimWae (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And the changes to Victoria Day were longer ago than the ones to Canada Day. Let's stop wasting our time --JimWae (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about a discussion on every page; I only know of what happened on Victoria Day and Canada Day. In both cases, an awkward situation arose where a change was made that supposedly violated a guideline but said guideline is poorly worded and the change remained uncontested for over a year. So, there was a quasi-consensus in effect and it was my personal preference to have at least the opportunity for some input at Canada Day before I changed the date format again; what transpired at Victoria Day confirms this for me. But, I wasn't going to contest anyone else's revert. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your script and catching the format changes I missed. Is your script compatible with TW? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Upstate New York

I am still working on this, so please give me a break. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No big deal - but that source was no better than no source at all - (in fact worse) - the "secret" stuff is irrelevant to the article. Good luck with the rescue. I think the topic is notable, but the article is far too long given the ambiguity of where the "region" is--JimWae (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've already cut out over 3,000 bits of info (see the history) and am seeking sources. Thank you! Bearian (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Common Era

JimWae, your recent contribution to the article Common Era was disruptive and unwarranted. Pejorative usage of a word or expression is no good reason to leave it out of an encyclopaedia, particularly when it is the word or expression that perfectly suits the situation. There are entire articles on such words; should they be taken down because a select minority choose to use those words with alternate meanings? The fact is that the terms "CE" and "BCE" are used for political correctness; if you see that as something bad, then that's your opinion, but it's certainly no reason to hide the fact from the pages of an encyclopaedia. If you object to the encyclopaedia stating such facts, then trying to provoke an edit war is not the appropriate means of action anyway; you should discuss matters like that on the article's talk page. I draw your attention to WP:3RR.(Huey45 (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

I draw your attention to WP:BRD. It is up to you to justify your edit. See the article on political correctness which very early states its pejorative usage JimWae (talk)

naming of dihydrogen monoxide

Hi Jim. On the revision made to the dihydrogen monoxide hoax page, you referred to page 69 of The issue is that this nomenclature refers specifically to oxyanion compounds. In these cases, the charge of the anion is not inherently known, and thus cannot be assumed. Therefore, prefixes on the hydrogen are necessary to avoid confusion of the formula. However, if you refer to page 28 of the same document, it is stated that "The multiplicative prefixes may not be necessary if the oxidation states are explicit or are clearly understood". In the case of H2O, the charges of +1 and -2 are implicitly known for hydrogen and oxygen, respectively. As a result, simple binary inorganics containing hydrogen are systematically named as alkali or alkaline metal ionic compounds are(such as sodium oxide, Na2O). For other examples in the same vein, see hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen telluride, etc. Zyste (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I inserted the p69 note to counteract the statement that the rules say the prefixes are not to be used with hydrogen. Note that page 34 gives "TRIhydrogen oxide" and page 33 gives hydrogen DIoxide. Yes, I inserted that page 28 footnote long ago. "may not be necessary" does not mean using them is inconsistent with standard nomenclature rules. I think the last version of "not among the names published" (which is only 2 names, and not exhaustive) is sufficient. --JimWae (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

LHO lead

Please lend your thoughts at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Lead (again). I hope consensus can be reached without any chalkboard erasers being thrown. EEng (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Upstate New York

Indeed, I have always understood it to include all of the state outside of the metro NYC area. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


This message is taking the place of a talkback template. I replied to you on my talk page. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I just sent you an email. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


It has become obvious to me that we are going around in circles with one editor. He keeps adding essentially the same material, over and over. Any suggestions how to solve this dilema? The only thing I can come up with is simply to revert to consensus. Feedback appears to have accomplished nothing. I am done trying to converse with him. Dispute resolution and WP:ANI are possible avenues. But it seems simpler to just revert to the consensus lede. What do you think? By the way, consensus lead is restored without any dressing. Oh by the way do you think the word "morally" should stay in the lede. Is that inclusive enough? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. Stevertigo pays attention to sources only to support a word or 2 he wants in the article. He is a disruptive editor who prevents others from working on improving articles & needs to be dealt with on that basis WP:DE
  2. Stevertigo leaves nearly every edit he makes marked as minor
  3. Is a penalty for being "off-sides" a punishment? Is being "off-sides" morally wrong?--JimWae (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello Alistair/JimWae. I made a mistake editing this page. I tried to correct it but you have now compounded it. The NAS did not conclude but rather a 2001 article in Science and Justice, the journal of Britain's Forensic Science Society. The way it is now written leads us to believe that the NAS concluded that there must be 2 gunmen...but it did not...the article did. Can we revert to the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Feel free to remove any wiki-llinks for words that really don't need a link, or that don't have a link that is useful for the article. I can suppose that people who read the article understand what the most of the words mean anyway. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln siblings

I don't think so. Good point...I'll make a note since I'm reading Donald now.Carmarg4 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln had an older sister named Sarah Lincoln (February 10, 1807 - January 20, 1828) who married a Grisby and who died in childbirth. Lincoln also had a younger brother, Thomas Jr., who died in infancy (1811-1812). He also had one step-brother and two step-sisters - John, Matilda and Sarah by his father's 2nd marriage to Sarah Bush Johnston. Lincoln corresponded with his step-brother, John. One problem I had with the who? was it was not clear whose sibling is being referred to - it almost seems like it is about AL, but since it's not, it probably does not even belong in the article--JimWae (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

George Washington

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *YES! 23:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Co-operative edit?

Hi. I agree with you that the WV section of Border States is inappropriately large. I cannot change a word there or it will automatically be erased. I would like to reduce the content to the approximate length of the KY & MO sections. What I can do is write a rough draft which I will post in a sandbox on my Profile page, and when it is ready I will let you know and you can critique it and propose changes. I won't post it unless we both agree on content. If we don't do it I don't think it will get done, and I can't do it by myself.Dubyavee (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

CSA -- Lincoln's militia call edit

thanks for relating Lincolns call for troops in a more rigorous fashion.

More background needs to be furnished. The article does not address developing disunionist events, either before sessionist conventions (Virginian Sec. War Floyd relocating armaments out of northern into southern armories.) or during (Virginian Henry Wise private troops were used at Harper's Ferry without the Governor's permission and before the plebicite ratification of secession.)TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln assassination

Thank you for providing a source. On behalf on our non-American fellow readers and editors who may not be familiar with American history, I take offense at your America-centric "petty" comment. I would appreciate it if you refrain from making such comments. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lulu Island as part of the Lower Mainland needs no explanation

I've taken this to WP Canada, as there's no point in us edit-warring over it. The term "mainland" is never exclusive of river-islands; islands separate by salt water are distinct from the mainland; Iona, Westham, Sea, Deas, and Lulu Islands are, like Barnston Island and others farther up the Fraser, clearly part of the the concept of "mainland" and also of the Lower Mainland, which is the name of a REGION and is used by its users as such, i.e. without geographic definition/description being an issue in the thinking behind their usage. It's specious in the extreme to say that Hatzic Island is not part of the mainland simply because it's within Hatzic Lake, ditto Long and Echo Islands in Narrison Lake. In the same way that Manhattan Island is not considered "offshore", being surrounded by fresh water, there's no point in explaining to people "not from the area" (by which I guess you mean second-language speakers) about the idiom; maybe it's necessary in Korean-language or Chinese-language versions of the page, it's not necessary in English, and comes off as nothing more than semantic clutter....Skookum1 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Putting aside our differences, I'd like to see if we can be non-adversarial and collaborative in working on the article. Each of us has points about editing the article which are valid. For starters, see Talk:Punishment#Disassembly for discussion relevant to our issues.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That is my wish too. The closer we stay to the sources, the less need for revision.--JimWae (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is a problem here, and its one of logic and philosophy. What you promote as a concept of fidelity to the sources, I differ in that the writing appears to be suffering. If it means getting new sources, then that would be preferable to keeping language such as "something negative or unpleasant" and "inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is regarded as something else." Its of course not just a prima facie case that passages like these are problematic, but it must be regarded as no more than a prima facie case that such passages echo the source. Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I'll reserve comment for a few days. Your version has the merit of being more generlistic. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Before you break

Jim, before you break I would like you to read the section on the talk page entitled "Collective punishment". If you were in the military at one time, you may recognize it. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln FA Nomination

I noticed you also have been a big contributor on the Lincoln article and wanted to make sure you knew it was up for nomination. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Since my message, the nom has now been closed, which seemed quick to me after only 48 hrs., though I am new at this. (You'll see another editor actually posted the nom.) If you have any thoughts on the next step (PR has been suggested) that would be welcomed. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

Because you were involved in some of these disputes you might (or might not) be interested in commenting at Stevertigo's Pattern of Problematic Editing---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim, hello. Well, thanks for the feedback (I guess). What do you mean my attention to WP:V is unpredictable? I thought I was overall pretty consistent. I notice that you are consistent. I mean you are very clear what your position is (none of this "overall" stuff for you :>). Anyway, I am interested in your feedback. I am always willing to learn a lesson or two.
not you Steve. STEVErtigo. I have clarified this on the ANI --JimWae (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Also I am thinking my complaint at ANI is too detailed. Do you think I should make it more compact? I may be able to say the same things with less text (i could give a try). ---- 00:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a less than 250 word version would help. Use what you want from mine. Another issue is, what do we do about him? I doubt a 1 day block would reform him.--JimWae

(talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

His user page contains a list of essays to which he is practically the only contributor. I think he needs to justify why ANY of those essays deserves to stay on wp. --JimWae (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree about with the question of "what to do about him?" In the middle of my ANI complaint I stated that normal sactions sre not likely to work, because he has been doing this since 2005 (and it is now 2010 etc.,) I am sure he has been a WP:DE for longer than that. However, in 2005 he was an adminstrator who was desyoped for edit warring, and for misuse of his blocking priveleges. That combination is what got him defrocked. [3], [4] People were incensed.
In any case, I think he needs to be blocked from Wikipedia from between six months and one year. If his editing is still disruptive after that I think he needs to be blocked permantly. He can then do requests for unblock until he shows that he will stop his disruptive edting.
I made my complaint more compact than it was. I will see if I can trim it even further. However, it is very important that the Admins know what I am talking about here. Not only has he been disruptive across these several articles, but he has been disruptive like this for years. Just this year he recieved a decision against him for a topic ban on Obama related articles. Part of this sanction includes an editing restriction. I have asked if this restriction applies only to Obama articles or is a general editing sanction. I wlll have to find the link again. I mentioned this in my complaint, without a link, either as an oversight or because it should be very easy for an administrator to have this information. In any case, if it is a general editing restriction, then he has violated it (which I pointed out). This is because the restricion is (something like) one edit per article per day. He was sanctioned in early 2010.
I will bring up the essays. I am sure he will provide a justification. I just need to base my assertion on policy, and guidelines. Is there any points of policy and guidelines, which you think are useful?
Other people are showing up with complaints similar to our experience with "Tigo", but on other articles. Hence, it may actually be possible to get him blocked for six months to one year. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Because one source does not specifically list DC, that doesn't mean they "differ" or that their stance is unclear. The military does consider DC part of CONUS; plenty of other government sources (including the one with which I replaced the incomplete one) list DC as part of CONUS. If you want more military-specific sources, see here and here. There's no limit to the number of U.S. government and military sources that specifically list DC as part of CONUS; why insist on using one that doesn't? Kafziel Complaint Department 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please reply here, rather than using notes in the article? They're hard to read and don't add to the article without the benefit of the context of this conversation. If you want to move the whole thing to the article talk page, that would be fine with me as well.

Anyway, as I said above, the fact that they don't specifically mention it every time they say "CONUS" doesn't mean anything; they don't specifically mention Iowa every time they say "CONUS", and Iowa is still part of it. I find it hard to believe that you really think Washington D.C.—the location of the Commander in Chief, the National Security Council, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—is not considered part of CONUS by the military under any circumstances.

DC is either part of CONUS, as the sources state, or it isn't, in which case there must be sources stating what it is part of. A source that lists (or treats) DC as part of something other than CONUS. There are sources like that for Alaska and Hawaii, so there would be some for DC as well (there aren't, because DC is part of CONUS, but you see what I mean). Unless you think the military has accidentally overlooked the White House and the Capitol in the course of their strategic planning. I'm sure you know vague phrases like "often" and "not always" aren't a valid substitute for a source. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, judging from the sections above and below, it looks like I'm catching you at a busy time. Don't feel like you need to answer right away; I'm in no hurry and I'm not going to get upset or anything. It's not an emergency. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the source - which is the same as what was already there before. I also modified the statement in the article. "CONUS" is clear only by listing all its members, not by any definition given. It is defined as "continental US " and as "contiguous 48 states". "Continental US" is unclear about Alaska, and "contiguous 48 states" does not include DC, though hardly anyone would actually EXCLUDE it. --JimWae (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There you go again - "hardly anyone". That implies someone, somewhere, has excluded it. Who? Source? Kafziel Complaint Department 02:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Article content needs sourcing, but not talk pages. The article now says "The District of Columbia is not always specifically mentioned as being part of CONUS.[15]" where [15] is the source.--JimWae (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't for the life of me understand why you think that's significant. That DC is part of CONUS quite literally goes without saying. It is included as part of CONUS in absolutely every instance. If you have a source - any source whatsoever - that shows DC as anything other than CONUS, let's see it. Otherwise, you're giving undue weight to your own bizarre interpretation. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

I opened a section at the ANI thread for Proposed sanctions. My proposal is first. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Stevertigo and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time

I am willing to mediate this dispute, if all participants find me acceptable, and the dispute is still live. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is requested on the talk page regarding your recent edit

to chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Apparently I'm the first to inform you: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_JimWae -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Time discussion

A discussion has begun (on the talk page) concerning the lede in the article Time. I invite you to join here: Introduction, take 2 ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo ArbCom case update

I just wanted to let you know that ArbCom has moved the case to the proposed decision stage. The proposed decision may be viewed here and may be commented about here. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, NW (Talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

  • Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
  • Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Punishment comments

If you want to rearrange the lede, feel free to do so. You are very good with this article, and with the "Time" article. I am glad that you are editing these articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Atheism lede discussion

Hi. I've have always valued your contributions and thoughtful opinions in general and I am not sure where the current discussion at the [wp:talk:atheism] is headed. I know that not everyone who watches this article always participates in the discussion, thus I'm expecting more turmoil and perhaps an RfC to occur if any significant change is made to the current version based on the outcome of the discussion. The status quo is safe in this regard and in many ways I favor it (it gives each of the definitions their own space and its language is simple enough and straightforward), but I don't think any minor tweak is going to stop the near constant calls for change. Perhaps not even a major change will do so either, but I do think Martin laid the groundwork here for it. I agree of course that the absence definition is not primary, but it is influential (note all the editors that want it put first, by itself no less). Thus I hope my proposal will be seen as a compromise that will give most of these editors something to be happy about (I'm thinking a few other editors will likely see the change, upon seeing it, as giving the absence definition far too much weight of course, but we do have Martin (That can be our first citation, but I am not sure how the BBC link would fit in, but support placing it either before or after the citations that are congregated in support of the proposed wording, as it would need to be an extensive note) and with the number of editors that are now involved there would probably be a consensus to support this change. If you choose to oppose my proposal that is fine and understandable given the prior discussions, so I'm writing here to say this, as I would step aside gracefully without opposition if you do and let whatever additional discussion play out. I'm not very interested in prolonging or continuing my participation to this extent anyway. I do hope, of course, that you support my proposal, or something similar, as I think it would go a long way towards building a consensus. --Modocc (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Modocc,

I value your contributions also, and am glad you are there at talk while/so I am/can, temporarily at least, reducing/reduce my time spent at wikipedia.

I gather you are referring to this as your proposal:

"Atheism, defined broadly, is the rejection, or the absence, of belief in the existence of deities. More narrowly, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." --Modocc (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I still very much favor having the 3 sentences, for the same reasons you mentioned ("it gives each of the definitions their own space and its language is simple enough and straightforward"). I think it is imperative that the reader be made aware early on that there are THREE distinct defintions, each with a different scope. Combining 2 defs with an "or" does not make it clear that they are two different defs (not the the "or" of near-synonymy) with two different scopes. They become "the two broad ones" or "THE broad ONE".

I do note & prefer your use of "defined", but because this def is about the rejection of belief, it is all that more important that casual readers not have words ("rejection of belief in the existence of...") that will end up getting "reduced" to "rejection of the existence of ..." ( a problem also with existing present version.)

I do not think ANY proposal will end the calls for change, and we could/would soon hear calls for "Atheism, defined broadly, is the absence, or rejection, of belief in the existence of deities." Some will not end their calls until the absence def becomes the only def given.

I still think that characterizing the rejection def as broad is a good part of what people are complaining about. There is no need to scope all 3 defs if we begin with the middle & note that there is a narrower and a broader def. You have remarked that my suggestion, along these lines:

One definition of atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[1] More narrowly defined, atheism is specifically the position asserting there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is viewed as the simple absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

does not work. I think it does -- & we have not really discussed any reason why it might not. I think we might have actually outlasted the old and silly NOTDIC objection.

Incidentally, there are many reliable sources (including Martin & Flew) that say the narrow def is a "common" def, AND no reliable source that says it is not. Under WP:ATTRIB, it would be NPOV to say the narrow def is "common" - and that may be especially useful if the discussion turns to going from narrow to broadest. Incidentally2, there are defs (such as ones that say atheism is "the position that God does not exist") which are narrower than our narrow one - so the other proposal under discussion (broadest to "...narrowest...") will not work.

Re Martin's Encarta def ("Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.") 1> he does not put the absence def first 2>Encarta is defunct 3>parsing of the "or" is somewhat ambiguous - is it "denial of belief in the existence of a god or gods" (the denial of, or lack of, belief in the existence of ...) or "denial of the existence of a god or gods" (denial of, or lack of belief in, the existence of a god or gods)? 4>He only gives 2 defs (or is it one?) - even though he knows of the rejection def. By ignoring the rejection def, he oversimplifies his task.

I wish there were a source for "Atheism is the denial of belief in the existence of any deities" - maybe then people who have never heard the rejection def before would find that more popular and better realize that atheism is better understood as an explicit position (though there can be implicit atheists)

BBC source is not any more reliable than - which is run by the New York Times. Cline's Masters is in Germanic Studies.--JimWae (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. The problem I see, but had a hard time thinking how to put it into words, with the "One definition of atheism..." suggestion is that it creates a first impression that the paragraph and perhaps the article is about only this one definition. That is not the case, but it does not seem to meet what is expected of a first sentence which is to say what the subject is per wp:lead... is it this one definition?????? I think that this expectation and the view towards editing is also at the heart of the arguments to broaden the scope of first sentence and why Martin did so in fact, albeit ambiguously. Although I have argued that the definitions can be mutually exclusive, there is still considerable "fuzziness" or context sensitivity in usage, so I think it was OK for Martin to have made his synthesis (and we therefore do not). Encarta may be defunct, but his article is very recently published and I think it has no less weight than other similar sources. I agree with being able to source and appropriately use "common" per wp:NPOV, and I would also source Smith and say something like "Another common understanding is...", but I think thst approach is less meaningful. At this point, after years of getting hammered by the extreme views on all sides, I'm hoping to get something less contentious. For instance, at first I was thinking that the push for giving the absence definition more weight was simply editor bias, but it seems now to me that the veracity of their discourse most likely has more to do with their expectations as I've just said, and it seems that most sources just don't live up to these. As for keeping the definitions separate, I've wondered occasionally why Kevin would see the current version as undue weight, but I think he is referring to the space given toward distinguishing the definitions, specifically, the number of words and I'm both ambivalent and somewhat empathetic to his concern. Your right that my version, like Martins, defines atheism broadly in a manner that is a single definition from the lot. Its not a simple context sensitive definition of simply either negation, rejection, or absence, but that is sort of the point, in it taking into account different usages. I don't think most readers are likely to think rejection and absence are synonymous and even if some take that view it wouldn't be completely incorrect. I think if the first sentence meets most expectations, sort of mangled by committee in a sense, but not completely mangled, or alternatively, not completely barren, simplistic or lacking content, the lede as a whole would see less disruption. --Modocc (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

United States

What is holding this back from FAC. I'll help out.--Iankap99 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Dickinson

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JimWae. You have new messages at Talk:More cowbell#THE Bruce Dickinson.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Seven days

It is interesting that we both responded to DVdm seven days after his response, at almost the exact same time. I actually had an edit conflict with you when I tried to save my response. What is also interesting is our agreement about the lack of consensus for a certain viewpoint, written at essentially the same time, without prior communcation. I mean I haven't had any communication with you for a couple of months (I think). Maybe it's a case of "great minds think alike." ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hospitals

Since the primary purpose of hospitals is major emergencies, and some other hamlets in the Town of Islip had the hospitals bunched up with other emergency services(albeit in chapters that should've been sub-chapters), I just thought it was okay to downgrade the one in Bay Shore to a sub-chapter. Speaking of Bay Shore, what happened to the seal? ----DanTD (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Single sentence paragraphs

"The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read" - Wikipedia

Please stop ruining perfectly good, time consuming work, based on an incorrect notion about single sentence paragraphs, and whether or not they're allowed on Wiki. No one likes them, but they're necessary, at times. Thank you. Greatsouthbay (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is single sentence paragraphs AND single sentence sections. Please see WP:Section ordering#Body sections. They are not "disallowed", but they are discouraged -- AND they are not, in this case, in any way, "necessary". Thank-you. --JimWae (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Keynes, John Manyard. (Reprinted 1991) Essays in Persuasión, p. 302, W.W. Norton and Co., ISBN 0393001903.