Can't tell you adequately how much I appreciate your comments -- I've been discouraged by the lack of chemists coming to support me, and to have a person not in science (I'm guessing) so clearly understand the problem of communicating a new (but already validated) view is most encouraging. THX! I have virtually given up hope of substantially changing the Entropy article, but it is so grievous to me as an old 'teach' that hundreds of thousands of students and adults checking Wikipedia will be led down the old path that has baffled millions for a century! There are several better, slightly or considerably more mature (!) intros to entropy that I'd recommend. For non-science adults, www.entropysimple.com, for youngsters beginning chem http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html or perhaps the best, the link cited at the first "what's new" at www.entropysite.com. The trend in chem is marvelously in my direction (and this morning I'm meeting with a world-class physicist-author who agrees with me and working on an article), but it's the public -- who COULD readily understand entropy via my approach -- that just are not being reached... Again, my gratitude.. Oh, P.S :-) re 'order' in the energy distribution in ANY physical system (and it is energy distribution that entropy measures!) just glance at the beginning and the end of http://www.entropysite.com/order_to_disorder.pdf . It's the final scientific 'nail in the coffin of 'disorder'. FrankLambert 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
About 20; would quit if there weren't so many really good editors around, yourself included. Am seriously busy thoughGleng 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments Jim. If RealDefender is a sock, he's still a very sharp cookie. S(h)e's nothing to do with me, and I guess a checkuser hunt will either kill the smear or validate it; the sooner the better, because if he's kosher he's good. Think Bish is missing the point somewhat about incivility, see my User page statement on what is wrong with WP. Bye, and good luck!Gleng 10:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Jim - I am sincerely trying to maintain a NPOV in this article. Please review my changes and notes in the edit boxes. I really don't think the drum needs to be beat so heavily to make certain points. For example, it should be sufficient to say that one is an autodidact and has little formal education to make that point. Obviously he doesn't have any college degrees. Likewise, the ID connection has been sufficiently noted. Langan is actually not involved in the ID movement as far as I know, other than to have published a paper in PCID and accept appointment as a "fellow" in the scholarly, rather than political, sense. TIA for your consideration. --DrL 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I was browsing through Deuteronomy last night, as is my custom, when it came to me: what Wiki needs is an article on The Bible And Sex! After all, the Old Testament is every adolescent's first dirty book - there's the story of Tamar, whoring herself by the city gates ("Well, yes Johnny, I know it's the Bible, but let's read the Psalms instead..."), Phineas making shishkebabs of an Israelite caught in flagrante with a woman of Midian (for which he was rewarded with the priesthood), not mention all those deuteronomistic laws prohibiting male and female temple prostitutes, (but not, you'll notice, prostitution outside the practice of religion), handing out the death penalty for any woman who tries to intervene in a brawl on her husband's behalf by grabbing his opponent by the balls (sounds like any Friday evening in a pub in Limerick), and blessing the practice of raping non-Israelite women captured in battle (following the slaughter of their husbands). Has the makings of a great story. Should we try to put this together? PiCo 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you mention the Song of Solamon (sic)? Just skimming by. Seems like the Tanakh's wisest person wrote some Hebrew erotica. It is almost entirely about sex. Check it out. 66.154.107.195 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I recently take it that you removed the section for a reason although I don't see one. Usually talk first then remove? Or is that too impolite to ask for given that there is a section in the talk for this topic already started. Thanks. (CptKirk 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
Since u didn't use WP:CITE to back up your claims to "sectarian" references (i.e The Vatican, The Catholic Press etc.) I can only conclude that your opinion is in violation of WP:NOR. Sorry. I have not reverted though because I will debate this with you in the discussion room. I am wikipolicy complient. I don't see how you can really state you will keep deleting something either if you cant cite your sources. That is not really wikipolicy is it now?(CptKirk 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
Wikipolicy compliant? What's that, like a certified pre-owned Lexus? I'd suggest you learn before you even attempt to lecture. Get a few more edits than 48 under your belt, get a featured article (I have 2), then we'll discuss Wiki policy. Capisce? Jim62sch 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight At its core I believe you are in error about what Undue Weight is. No I don't understand you. Sorry. Right now for instance I could be well within my rights on Wikipedia to revert back to my article and put up a dispute sign which you could not remove along with article content I included (which meets Wikipedia guidelines and no guidelines has been proposed by anyone, including you, to refute that) until the dispute has been fully resolved. I did not do that for a reason. I suggest you take a look at WP:CIV and understand that my edits where done in good faith. I am telling you now, that I do this in good faith… so that you know. Others have also told you that also. If you do not believe so then take another look at that same policy. It will tell you want to do. As far as I can tell it is telling you to assume good faith. As for post count, experience does not equate to knowledge, especially when it comes to easy to understand guidelines that are placed on the user’s control panel by the administration expressly for this purpose. It depends on the user’s ability to grasp the policies or not.
Since you are now claiming that adding the RCC adds undue weight (funny how I was the one to use that policy first but I will give you the benefit of the doubt) to the article you will have to explain why. Saying that we need to cover all church groups if we do include the RCC statement, does not seem to have any policy to support it or a good quality reason. Do you have any? I do not think your position is logical. For example a church with 100 people that believe in the Bible and evolution should not even be mentioned in the article if the remaining 100 Million church goers do not. If 1.3 Billion Catholics are supposed to reject ID that conflicts with evolution then that needs to go in to balance the article which is biased and incorrect (i.e. – all theologians believe in ID). I would however believe that a major Protestant denomination or religion that also occupies the same or similar position to the RCC (that ID that contradicts evolution is wrong) might be omitted. Which one??? In this case then the edit might be omitting weight and giving undue to the RCC.
For this reason I suggest you explain to the discussion room what other religions (that meet WP:RS guidelines with sources please) or theological bodies could be given due weight if holding to a position that they believe that ID is wrong if it contradicts evolution. (CptKirk 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
CptKirk, perhaps you are unaware that the onus is on you, as the editor who wishes to add information, to provide sources for the change. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. You are asking Jim to provide sources which contradict your position; please make a clear case for your desired edits on the talk page of the article, providing sources, and discuss with other editors. Let me know if you have any questions - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Good advice, Killer. Deliver, CptKirk.
Secondly, the number of Catholics in the world is irrelevant.
Thirdly, you apparently haven't read the comments on the ID talk page, and thus are missing the point: the section you wish to include is irrelevant. Period. Jim62sch 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Largely off topic, but it would be nice, if probably unattainable, to get some indication of what proportion of US religionists actually support ID/creationism combined, or ID itself. More usefully, me thinks the article should mention widespread cross-denomination opposition to ID, ,,, why all them latin tags, do you expect lats to read them? .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
'Tis the language of the RCC. ;) Jim62sch 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
..Show-offs. -- Ec5618 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Noli te conturbare morte: mors inevitabilis, cur ergo hac te vexes? :) Jim62sch 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheeky blighter! Whaddya mean, "Three of us are admins"? [1] And note the capitalisation and spelling: completely unrelated to your Sousaphonics. Am sair tempted to refer you to Dunbar's pioneering verbiage, though probably won't since some guy seem to have got into trouble with that sort of thing. Nuff said, dave souza, talk 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ach, I always screw that up. Jim62sch 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes tis.
On WP:CITE style. Sorry KillerChihuahua but I fail to see how you missed that the statement in the article edit cited several sources. Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean?
On figures. As demonstrated the number is important for issues of undue weight. See discussion forum.
Your opinion unfortunately refuted by the fact that page already included a section references Church group members and incorrectly stated their opinions in some instances.
I agree with your last statement. It is all for another article. I agree. But what is in this current one needed to be sorted out. (CptKirk 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
One hopes that all of the above is on the talk page. Jim62sch 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I had to look up Polysyndeton. Just goes to show that even a creationist can learn from "the opposition". Thanks, and I mean it, and I'm grateful, for the vocabulary lesson! --Uncle Ed 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, while I understand that he can be frustrating, attacking him for his blog title is both unproductive and a personal attack. JoshuaZ 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously we disagree as to the definitions of productive and attack. BTW: did you remember to notify him of same re his use of the word "slanderous"? What about his comments re FM? No? Jim62sch 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you see as factually false in my comment to you? I claimed that you posted a certain comment to Talk:Uncommon Dissent; that I saw no basis for your remark; and I asked you to restrict your comments on article talk pages to article content (which I misspelled "comment"). Was the comment I quoted from Talk:Uncommon Dissent not posted by you? --Coppertwig 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your more recent post on my talk page: Again, what do you see as inaccurate about my comment? Did you not post the comment I quoted and attributed to you? Which sentence in my comment do you believe to be false? --Coppertwig 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This "I have read the RfC and see no basis for the above remark" calls into question your judgment.
BTW: as noted, the WP:AGF policy covers my comments, therefore your assertion of WP:NPA is inaccurate. See WP:SPADE. Jim62sch 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my mention of WP:NPA was misconstrued. I intended to ask you to comply with this policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" or similar policy on that page. My mention of the page WP:NPA was not intended to imply that you had carried out a "personal attack". I should have edited my comment so that the link to WP:NPA did not display the words "personal attack". Note that in my comment I nowhere stated that you had made a personal attack, however.
My comment "I see no basis for the above remark" is intended as a statement of my judgment of the situation. It's not reasonable for you to claim that I see a basis for something when I say that I do not. --Coppertwig 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Likely why your judgement is questioned. Editors who are clearly not up-to-speed on policy shouldn't be surprised when they find their opinions discounted accordingly. FeloniousMonk 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA is only to be used when a personal attack has occurred, not just for the hell of it. In addition, I'm hopeful that your judgment is sufficient to see why WP:SPADE and AGF's "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" apply, and why my pointing out such fact is in no way a violation of any policy but is rather supported by policy. I suggest that as a relative newbie you brush up on Wikipedia's rules and realise that the policies and guidelines are interwoven in such a way that one needs to weigh all related policies and guidelines before commenting.
FM is correct in his post. Jim62sch 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my talk page. If you think I've broken any Wikipedia policy or guideline, please tell me specifically which policy or guideline and which of my edits are involved. --Coppertwig 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention the Volksgerichtshof in your comment here. I was just noticing how many sites on the Internet draw an implicit comparison between Quackwatch (and/or Stephen Barrett) and Adolf Hitler. I guess, with the clear moral equivalence between a self-appointed alt-med critic and the activities of the Third Reich, such metaphors readily spring to mind. Anyhoo, I agree with your comments about that ArbCom case. What ever happened to that guy User:KrishnaVindaloo who was making himself so popular on the chiropractic pages? MastCell 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! Like you, I like to use foreign phrases. Unlike you, my Latin rating is around la-0.5. I could use some of your la-4 help in doing a little bit of translation. Honest, it really is a little bit of translation. In fact it's just one word.
I want a phrase on the model of Carthago delenda est, except I want to replace Carthage with deletion or destruction or something like that (destruction must be destroyed). If we can double up the word delende that would be ideal -- something like deleto delenda est, except I just invented the word deleto because I don't really know any Latin declension. I appreciate any help you can give me. — Randall Bart 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't get you into this without telling you this involves WikiPolitics. I'm making a slogan for the AntiNotable faction. — Randall Bart 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply left on Randall's page Jim62sch 11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I've added two addition subpages similar to the first, User:Otheus/notes and User:Otheus/aa, to the MFD description. FeloniousMonk 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Otheus has asked me to look into his recent accusations of being a sock puppet. I, having nothing to do with any of the individuals involved, or articles involved, agreed to look into it as a neutral third party. Do you know of any particular edits that may lead to suspicions that Otheous is a sockpuppet of Agapetos angel? The article that I am aware of them having common edits on are Jonathan Sarfati. Is there another article that I am unaware of? My research has shown that Otheus has only edited that article 6 times, of which 5 edits were reverting edits by an anon to a previous state, reverting himself or making minor grammatical changes. The only edit I could possibly see as tenditious is [2] which appears to be a re-wording of the content. I am not very involved in this case, so pardon my ignorance, was Agapetos angel and his sock puppets known for re-wroding phrases? If so, I stand corrected in my assumption that Otheus is in fact not a sock puppet. There are several other reasons why I believe this to be the case as well. If you have a take on this, or a personal opinion or anything, I would love to hear it. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand the ban applies to people who edit like him. Especially in regads to the edit inq uestion, Otheus has only 6 edits to that article, and only 1 of them are actual edits. I guess I dont see a connetion there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree and disagree that it does not hurt to check. I personally would be very offended if I was accused of being a sock of a tourlbesome editor. I realize that sock puppet investigations are important, But I think that many wikipedians are too quick to say, "your a sock puppet, were gonna get you". (please not, this is not a rant against you, just what I have seen so far and why I feel the sock puppet process can be detrimental). It is really easy to say, "You are a sock because you edited the same article as a disruptive editor." Should Otheous not be a sock, would anybody apolagize for making the accusation? While I think it is important, I think it can be very detrimental when used wrongly. I guess from what I have seen, this is bordering on one of those situations. And, in all honsety, if the wikipedia community were to turn on me one day and accuse me of being a sock, i would be offended, how about you? (Please note again, this is nothing personal gainst anybody, however vague generalizations about how I feel in regards to sockpuppets). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
wherein you wrote "I'll be blunt: the proposed is a bullshit intro" concerning my proposed rewrite to the lead paragraph. I couldn't find a WP:BLUNT, but we do have a WP:CIVIL policy. Would you be so kind as to edit your comment to be less offensive? Thanks, Cat Whisperer 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you are not aware, there is a difference between a Wikipedia policy, such as WP:CIVIL, and mere essays, such as the WP:SPADE you referred to on my talk page. In any event, I can find no constructive criticism contained anywhere in your blunt comment, so I will not be responding to it on Talk:Intelligent Design. -- Cat Whisperer 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you found nothing in WP:CIVIL to back up your first post.
As for whether you choose to respond or not, as it was a general comment and not directed at anyone, I don't really care if you respond. That's your choice. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment "BTW, have you read WP:CIVIL yourself? Damned if I can see any vio" (and subsequent comments) on my talk page:
I'm here as an editor in order to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I assume (per WP:AGF) that you are as well. I had thought that you would be interested in finding out how you could improve our working together on this common goal by being less offensive in your talk page comments. You have made it painfully clear that I was mistaken in this belief. I apologize for having bothered you. I am happy to consider this matter closed, if you are. -- Cat Whisperer 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Cat, I'm not trying to be dismissive of you, I'm just noting (perhaps too forcefully) that choosing to respond or not respond is up to you. (Also, I just looked at the page again and realised that you created the proposed intro, so I can see why you were upset). But, as noted above I was not dismissing the editor, just the proposal. Hey, I've had proposed edits torn to shreds, and I've just moved on to another attempt at a better edit. I'll add an addendum to my response so you know what my criticism is. •Jim62sch• 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You are off subject and inaccurate. TheBestIsYet 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 12:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that that was well over a year ago, do you think I recall the circumstances? Delete it. •Jim62sch• 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see you speak Portuguese. I wonder if you could help me with a quick translation? The text is at User:Sannse/Sandbox. Many thanks for any help you can give -- sannse(talk) 17:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Jim, I'm really sorry - I edited my sandbox while logged out to add the text I needed in Portuguese. Someone thought it was vandalism and reverted to some old random text I had there. It's the very short letter that I need help with, and not the stuff about dogs. I'm really sorry for the confusion and what must have seemed like a horribly big request! Thanks again -- sannse(talk) 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks that's just great -- sannse(talk) 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Howdy. I agree with you, my edit was a bit of a mess up. I was a bit late on rv-ing this edit by User:24.41.61.18, and since User:FeloniousMonk beat me to it, I ended up rv-ing him (her?) by mistake instead of the ip... Then User:Silence came along and fixed my foul up before I could! :)... The perils of a modem connection! :) Mikker(...) 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the message & for checking up on me! :-) Mikker(...) 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it very dfficult to praise myself, so I'll just have to hope that the... rather surprising levels of support will outweigh the opposes for "not taking it seriously enough". It's one of those things: I suppose I could do it if I had to, but I hate doing it so much that when I'm not even sure I need the powers, beyond a desire to be able to help a bit more with vandalism and disputes, it's hard to force the effort. Adam Cuerdentalk 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh, well, if that's the worst that comes out about me, I'll probably consider it a fairly surprising success - I was rather worried someone would start talking about how awful I was. Adam Cuerdentalk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Oooh, you are awful! Just thought Jim would like to see this pic while stocks last, and you both might like to note that news of it has reached this side of the pond..[4][5]. Some of the comments struck me as quite amusing. .. dave souza, talk 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia's not a parody? What is it, a parody of a parody? It's bloody hysterical. And dinosaur, as we know, is from bloody Greek, not Latin (somehow lacerta terribilis just doesn't sing). And why if Jesus riding a dinosaur? ROFL. Jim62sch 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice pic, eh? Came across it at TMW 1:50 PM February 26, 2007, which includes a cite from one of their impressive sources. They've updated the page to remove the pic, but left in the Latin. That good old-fashioned education, eh no? .... dave souza, talk 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, no child left behind: of course their dim parents are a whole other issue. Jim62sch 15:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that catch phrase. Every time it comes up, my mental translation of it into Scots is "every bairn a right arse"..... :) .....dave souza, talk 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In a way, you're close. The kids spend 2 to 3 months of every 10 studying for standardised tests, the results of which only prove how well they can study for standardised tests. Jim62sch 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds horribly similar to the SAT tests schools here are plagued by. Am sore tempted to point out the British / Scottish idioms above, but knowing your linguistic skills will head for bed. Night night, .. dave souza, talk 00:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is far too polite to mention things like "Stupid Ass Test". :) Jim62sch 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Upon further review, Jim, it would appear that you are essentially wrong about my removal of material from my own user talk page -- it is not prohibited or frowned upon. Please review the last sentence of Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space.
On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.
Of course, that doesn't mean you are free to express your displeasure with it. --Otheus 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Had you removed it completely (meaning the whole conversation was archived), I wouldn't care, but in removing part of a comment you altered what the person was trying to say, and therein lies the problem I have with what you did (I was pretty clear about that from the get go). This isn't the Bush Administration where unwanted criticism just goes *poof*. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I can no longer take your advice in good faith. Please STOP commenting on this matter. If we are to have a fight, let it be over something substantive and meaningful.
I'm sorry. I realized that you have good advice to offer, and I should have assumed more good faith. Also, my last statement implies that your feedback was not over something substantive or meaningful, and that was wrong on my part. I humbly offer my apology on both counts. --Otheus 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
One more note. I have just come across FM's filling for checkuser on me Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Otheus. Now his reactions make a lot more sense. The only question is, will he be satsified with the results and how will we move on? --Otheus 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Jim, you removed my addition of the POV-section template. I did not understand why you did this. Was it because you think nobody but me is engaged in an NPOV dispute about that section?
Use this when the bulk of an article is OK, but a single section appears not to be NPOV. You should explain what's wrong with the section on the talk page.
I wish you would leave NPOV dispute tags alone when you see them placed on an article, until a consensus develops on the article's talk page that the NPOV dispute has been resolved. --Uncle Ed 18:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ed, it's quite humourous that after inserting your POV into the article (a POV that was reverted), you decided to add a POV tag. Try using fact tags or request better sourcing. You know better. •Jim62sch• 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Back a few months ago, I stumbled into this nasty cobweb of an article. There are three or four main editors who are fighting over the issue of sources concerning this article (and its derivations). Though I wanted to help, I slowly backed out because I realized I had insufficient literacy skill in Spanish. Given that you're currently the only experienced Spanish-competent editor I know here, I'm asking if you have the time/energy/interest in helping sort out their dispute. --Otheus 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, yes I'll gladly check it out tonight and over the weekend. Weird, but to me that should be a pretty straight-forward story, but I guess nothing's ever easy. •Jim62sch• 08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this [6] good enough to remove the "fact" tag, Sir?. Randroide 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jim, just before I left the debate, I assisted the group by starting DR on the talk pages, which is now archived, and you can read starting here. That seems to be the basic summary of issues. But of course, things get very personal and entangled shortly again after that. I'm really interested in this, so I'll continue to monitor, but beyond that, I doubt I can be of any help. Oh, your spanish might be better than Igor's english. --Otheus 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this edit [7]?. I am tired of being the ogre reverting Igor21´s edits.
If you are not following the debate about the bombings in Spain, Igor21´s is a textbook example of POV edit. I can source this assertion if it is necessary. Today, I have had enough "hardening the Kalaji bunker".
If you think that the issue merits your attention, please be extra-kind with Igor21.
Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide 09:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, his horrid spelling aside, he is correct that the controversy surrounding the authorship has significantly lessened -- most people seem to have accepted the decisions of the courts. The controversy over the government response and Aznar's attempt to pull a Dubya and misrepresent facts, as well as police incompetence and potential negligence is real. Aznar thought he could simply pin the bombings on the ETA and ride hatred of the Basques to reelection of his Party.
In any case, a bit of rewordng is certainly needed.
BTW, it's no inconvenience ... I like new challanges! •Jim62sch• 11:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see another set of eyes on this page. It is as initially described. I hope you can return and continue to participate. Someone with a facility in Spanish, but not previously involved in this article, is greatly needed.--Mantanmoreland 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The article reads in places like the set up for a conspiracy theorist's dream -- and I suppose that's the point. I've already found references that were mistranslated and others that did not support the statements to which they were appended. •Jim62sch• 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That was my suspicion too, but not being a Spanish-speaker I simply had to assume the translations previously provided were in good faith. Problem is that emotions run very high and some of the best-intentioned editors do not speak English well and are outmaneuvered in the Wiki bureaucracy. Glad you are back and please remain!--Mantanmoreland 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Jim - do you know which page I need to go to in order to request a block on an IP address? Special:Contributions/206.116.24.245 has been vandalizing acupuncture-related pages. Hope you've been well!
thanks much, Jim Butler(talk) 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Dunno if you were watching this sort of thing, but is this being kind and turning the other cheek in the way these religious chappies like? .. ;) .. dave souza, talk 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't heard Mod used since I saw The Kids Are Alright. Ymous is quite clearly just a bit off (possibly off his meds, too, guessing from the rambling nature of his posts).
Your reply was great! It'll take him a while to figure out how to reply. •Jim62sch• 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I undid your reverts, and started a discussion as to why. Just wanted to let you know in case you did not have a watch. I think the initial changes I made were reasonable, and make the case on the Noah's Ark discussion page. ImprobabilityDrive 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
vulgus (Wow, some dictionaries don't even have a definition that matches the one intended on this word. Simply using this word is elitist:) BTW, I took the world view quiz, thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Nah, the dictionary did not define it as elitist...that comment was referring to the context in which you used it (something like: if that is elitist, so be it). And I thought my vocabulary was becoming adequate, and first I misconstrue mythological and now get stumped (along with my dictionary) by vulgus. The first dictionary I checked had only "a short composition in Latin verse formerly common as an exercise in some English public schools" I had to resort to another dictionary to get the meaning you probably intended "the common people; masses". It's too bad that my usual dictionary did not have your definition, though. I don't want the OED, unless I can get it cheap and in electonic format. ImprobabilityDrive 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I spent quite a bit of time going through the references trying to identify which ones were no longer mentioned in the article. I moved them to the talk page because some of them seemed to be pretty good, and as you know, finding, formatting, and adding such references is time consuming. I assumed (and I think this assumption is correct) that the references were used in the article at one time but became orphaned after content and citations making use of them were removed without due attention to the possibility that the removed citation was the only content pointing to the reference. However, another good reason to move them to the talk page was in case an error in editing was made (I was very careful, but mistakes happen.) And, if you think formating harvard references is difficult, try formatting them such that when displayed they are cut and pastaable. I did this, and it was time consuming. I don't want to toot my own horn, but I did feel a little ganged up on today, and I also think that you may have misunderstood the rationale and effort behind the reference move. Peace. ImprobabilityDrive 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I just realized the implication by User:Orangemarlin is that I am User:Gnixon. However, I just compared contribution log of myself and Gnixon. There are some overlaps. Hopefully this will be sufficient to address the implication that I am User:Gnixon. I am not, and I don't know him either. Also, I am more than eager to collaborate with others. I think this rumor may be in part why I felt like I was ganged up on today at the Creation-evolution article. Please AGF, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OM uses the accusation of sock-puppet to silence people who disagree with him. Felonious M does the same. There is a group that pretty much owns the evolution area articles. They promote their POV by chasing away or eventually banning their competition. Right now they have been suppressed a bit. But soon the articles will go their POV direction. If you look through the history you will see many editors accused of being banned editors if they express views against the 'owner's'. But fortunately the bias of the articles is so obvious that people viewing them can see it right away. Good luck. 69.211.150.60 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't. If you're going to make a misstatement about what I have done in the past, you better be prepared for consequences Mr. Anonymous-who's-incapable-of-getting-a-real-account. Every sockpuppet charge I've ever leveled, save for one, and I took that back quickly, was endorsed by many others, and were successful. Orangemarlin 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, anon, you're actually wrong on all counts, but be that as it may. If you wish to make further comments on my page, get an account.
I-drive: I don't knopw about the sock puppet bit, but it is OM's right to ask for a sock-check -- I've done it myself with other users and 80% of the time they've been socks (not that I'm implying that you and Gnixon are the same user). One user, Jason Gastrich was recently reinstated, and within 6 hours five socks were traced back to him and he was perma-banned. This is just one of those things we have to do if anyone has suspicions about an editor. Look, I was once accused of having a sock, but I didn't and the sock-check proved it. Ditto for FM who has been accused several times, but the sock-check showed there was no sock.
I would however recommend that you slow down and try to gain consensus or you're simply going to be seen as a POV-warrior. Quite honestly, a number of your edits seem like POV whitewash to me. Additionally, the issue of the references would have been best handled not by removing them, but by bringing them up for discussion. It's one thing to "be bold" it's another to be reckless. As with all communities, Wikipedia has its socio-political realities, and simply invoking AGF (akin to saying "trust me") does not recuse an editor from seeking consensus and working within the dynamic of the community. •Jim62sch• 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the references, it really could not be handled much better. Not only was I careful, but just in case a mistkae was made, I conveniently formatted and posted the orphaned references to the talk page in such a manner that they could easily be reviewed, and if found to be mistakenly identified as orphans, copied and paste back into the article (without having to edit the talk page to do the copying, which is normal) with judicious use of <nowiki> takes. I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody who did so much (thankless) work so quickly, carefully, and conveniently. ImprobabilityDrive 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jim62sch. As you know we are trying to improve the article about the bombings that is in a very poor condition. I remove the conspirationist section about the former police and then Randroide keeps accusing me of vandalizing. I am planning to carry on with the improvement so Randroide harrassament will probably increase. Just to let you know that I have given your name to the admins who are being called by Randroide -who is taking his good editor disguise as usual- to block me for vandalizing. I do not speak very good English as you know (I am Catalan and I learned French at school) but I will try to do my best. I hope is not a big issue for you if time to time an admin contacts for checking if I am a vandal or not. Please let me know if you want me to stop giving your name as reference to the admins recruited by Randroide to stop me and Southofwatford or if you think is better we do not edit the article and do something alternative. --Igor21 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Igor, you can use my name, that's fine. I think the dispute is out of hand in that it's one thing to say that a controversy exists and another to try to paint the entire incident as some boig conspiració.
Don't worry about your English, if only my Catalan (I can read it but not speak it) were half as good! •Jim62sch• 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 11:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Response left on Hagerman's talk page. The page in question is an RfC, not a discussion page. •Jim62sch• 11:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim, I don't know the detail of the other accusations so have not yet commented, but your revision in the LBU list no. 4 "[13] Asserts thar Dave Souza's edits which clearly meet WP:V and WP:RS, and which have muliple citations of being an essay by placing essay tag on article." seems to me to misunderstand the sequence of edits leading up to it. I had just reverted an edit which Odd nature made and described as Reverting to last good version., which wiped out changes made by various editors including myself and JzG. So ImprobabilityDrive was actually agreeing with me, that two parts of that section of the article were based on an interpretation of unreliable sources and appeared to violate WP:NOR, and his edit could be seen as part of normal negotiation of an acceptable version, which now seems to have been achieved. Much as I dislike tags, it was drawing attention to a discussion and wasn't just vandalism. ... dave souza, talk 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, ya stuck this in the wrong place. Odd, I didn't get a "you have messages" message. I'll go fix the item in the RfC. •Jim62sch• 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I was told that quite a number of admins thought something needed done to break the deadlock, and that it was my call, but I must do something.
I did what I thought best, under the assumption that, well, it's not like I'm going to defend it from anything but editwarring. Others can tweak at will. I just tried to put up something non-controversial, accurate, and weasel-free as a start.
With all respect, as far as I can tell, you didn't participate in the discussion to any significant extent. I was trying to find a solution acceptable to all the reasonable parties. And, yes, Morphh counts as one of them: She objects only to the inaccuracy of the old "argument for the existance of God" neglecting the important difference between it and the older versions.
I acknowledge it's a bit clunky. But that can improve, provided it's good enough not to inspire the rabid hate that leads to edit wars. Adam Cuerdentalk 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
He didn't give you his permission to use his e-mail, so you probaly can't do that. You can state the facts he stated, but without attribution, the believers will just take that as you offering another (in their eyes) POV opinion. Of course, you could ask his permission to be quoted, but even then, I don't know if it would be applicable beyond the talk page.
Anyway, Katherin is a PITA and the two anon trolls don't even deserve a response. Any chance he might have blogged anything similar? •Jim62sch• 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jim: Didn't want to get too far off track on the ID talk page.
Picking up from where it left off:
Actually, beef and cow shared phonemes in PIE only. Star and étoile (< Lat stella) only had the initial phoneme "st" in common. Now, there are linguistic rules that cover these phoneme changes, but we don't have enough space here to go into them. See Grimm's law for a few of them. •Jim62sch• 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Perdón a me, pero no entiendo Proto-Indo-European. But, there was a point in time and an approximate place on earth (a when and where), over two millennia ago, that the PIE root of "stella" came to be another earlier form of what is now "étoile" en français. And there also was another point in time and approximate place (another when and where) that "stella" came to be an earlier form of what's come to be "star", via the following approximate path as described by Etymologyonline.com: O.E. steorra, from P.Gmc. *sterron, *sternon (cf. O.S. sterro, O.N. stjarna, O.Fris. stera, Du. ster, O.H.G. sterro, Ger. Stern, Goth. stairno), from PIE *ster- (cf. Skt. star-, Hittite shittar, Gk. aster, astron, L. stella, Bret. sterenn, Welsh seren "star"). Apparently the French took a more divergent route over time to arrive at the present "étoile", but began with the same root. Here's another tack: Indo-European Root Etymology: Star. Oldest form "ster-". Suffixed form *ster-s-. STAR, from Old English steorra, star, from Germanic *sterzn-. Suffixed form *str-l-. STELLAR, STELLATE; CONSTELLATION, from Latin stlla, star. Basic form *ster-. ASTER, ASTERIATED, ASTERISK, ASTERISM, ASTEROID, ASTRAL, ASTRO-; ASTRAPHOBIA, DISASTER, from Greek astr, star, with its derivative astron, star, and possible compound astrap, asterop, lightning, twinkling (< "looking like a star"; ps, op-, eye, appearance; see okw- in Indo-European roots). Again, at the point of departure, whenever and wherever it occurred, these words had phonemes in common. ... Kenosis 23:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a point that I did not argue (this, "...only had the initial phoneme..." should have been in present tense, but I missed it in reviewing the edit). French étoile derived from Latin stella as estella in about the 8th century, étoile developed a bit later and the vowel changes (odd though they are) are standard for French (as is the addition of an intitial e before an s and the eventual loss of the s). I really didn't need the etymology (I know it and many others by heart), but I suppose it might help other editors. •Jim62sch• 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
For an example of what PIE might have looked like, see [8]. •Jim62sch• 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It's all PIE to me ;-) Thanks for an interesting exchange. ... Kenosis 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hah! I should've said "perhaps over two millennia ago". So you say it was only about 1300 years ago that "stella" began to morph into what's now "étoile". Interesting. ... Kenosis 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Old French started around the 8th century as a variation of Vulgar Latin, but the first example is in the Oaths of Strasbourg from 842. I'm working on a translation of the first few lines of the Chanson de Roland with OFr, Fr, Latin and English (for reference purposes) so you can see the evolution. (Obviously, the Latin will be a back-formation, but it'll still be helpful).
The deviation of stella (Hey! Stel-laahhh!) from PIE occured somerewhere between 3000 and 2200 years ago. I haven't found an old Latin source mentioning stella yet, so I can't be sure when the change it occurred, but Latin has existed since at least 800 BCE (the earliest inscriptions are from about 550 BCE) so the change occurred somewhere in that time period. •Jim62sch• 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the TfD, but the template is not meant to imply that criticism should be removed from articles. It most definitely should not. Every article about a subject that is criticized should definitely have criticism.
This template is for articles that arbitrarily segregate all the criticism into a single section and leave the rest of the article overly positive. As the template says, the criticism should be "incorporated into more appropriate areas of the article". I've added an example and some rationale to the template page.
Can you think of a way to reword the template so it doesn't imply that criticism should be completely removed? — Omegatron 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have read many books a containing criticism section and not a one of them contained a "criticism warning", nor should they. I simply do not see how a criticism section violates any policy or guideline, including NPOV. I can think of ten reasons to get rid of the template, and not one to keep it. Sorry, but as I do not see a valid reason for the template's existence, I cannot come up with a better way to phrase a bad idea. •Jim62sch• 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Criticism sections aren't horrible things, and criticism should always be included, but in a lot of cases, it's better to organize the article in another fashion. The template doesn't say that all such sections are bad, and definitely doesn't say that the criticism should be removed.
Can you show me an example of an article in which a Criticism section is used to good effect? — Omegatron 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Note, I do nt disagree with interweaving the criticism skillfully though the article when necessary, but I do not see a functional difference between that style and a crit section. Criticism in and of itself is a troll/POV warrior magnet. Might as well make up a template like this:
This article contains Criticism or Controversy.
This means you may not like this article. We'd love to be politically correct and remove all criticism and we just might do that if you whine enough.
I completely disagree with removing criticism from the article altogether. This does not make it "politically correct" or neutral. — Omegatron 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, ProtoCat is questioning your last post on Talk: Intelligent Design based apparently on a conversation I've been having on User_talk:ProtoCat. It's surprisingly... willing to debate... in fact it's a new account that has contributed only to Talk pages. I don't know what to make of it. SheffieldSteel 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sheff...I think my response should resolve that particular issue. I'm not sure if it's a sock, but it's definitely a single-purpose account, and they seem to get blocked an awful lot. •Jim62sch• 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jim: I left a post on User talk:ProtoCat recommending that some of the exchanges be struck or removed, towards a possible fresh start. Any interest? ... Kenosis 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I call troll. After the "let's discuss this on my talk page/OMG! You followed me to my talk page! Stalker!" incident, I began to have suspicions, but this current "Please tell me what I did wrong?/OMG! You told me what I did wrong!" clinches it. Let's leave 'em be. Adam Cuerdentalk 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That is hilarious. I think I'll stick with (s)he or he/she and her/him or him/her, despite fear of the Linguistics Enforcment Department (LED) forbidding the use of the slash. .... Kenosis 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit that the fact I've been high on codeine the last few days probably hasn't helped, however, I'm trying to insist upon precision. ID varies from the classic teleological argument by pussyfutting around the nature of the designer. Thats the important definitional point, and from a simple stating facts perspective, that's what we have to put forth. The teleological argument is an obscure bit of theology. Explaining that ID is the teleological argument is insufficient to explain why it's not a scientific theory, and so it is wrong and far more likely to be DI-friendly edits to harp on the scientific theory aspect with such a weak rebuttal than anything I've wrote.
Hell, they're now trying to weaken the checks on the DI definition by going back to "proposition" as a description of a quote from DI propoganda about how great they are. And I'm the one weakening the message of the science side? Adam Cuerdentalk 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, Adam, no offense, but perhaps you should limit your editing while you're drugged. It does seem to be affecting your ability to edit well. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that the teleological argument is obscure, but that the phrase "teleological argument" is obscure. It's better to describe it. That said, I think Killer Chiuauaha's right. Adam Cuerdentalk 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite like design argument myself, but won't argue. Anyway, "cognates" is what the expert witness said. Hence the quote marks, whatever you linguist chappies call them. ;) .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Alas the witnesses were not linguists. ;) •Jim62sch• 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jim, we've never worked together directly, but I've seen both your work and your comments on many of the articles that interest me, and sometimes we comment on the same talkpages. Whenever we do, it seems that we share near-identical positions on most issues. I look forward to seeing you around WP, and possibly working a project together in the future. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 00:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Doc, I've noticed the same thing. Maybe that means we're both crazy. ;) Thanks for the message, I appreciate "hellos" (hmmm...should there be another e in there?). •Jim62sch• 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The references given isn't a SCOTUS reference, and as i've tried pointing out several times on the talk page, the reference given is the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, in the Pennsylvania Middle District. As far as I (Or any reader who looks closely at the reference compared to the statement) can tell, the reference given does not prove that Intelligent Design cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in all United States public schools, only that it cannot be taught in all school districts which fall inside the Pennsylvania Middle District. Now, I may be missing out on some SCOTUS decision outlawying Intelligent Design nation-wide or a decision specifically calling it a violation of the 1st amendment, (I don't often hang around these Creationism pages) but if I am, nobody is being very forthcoming about which decision that is. Homestarmy 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Go study the US Court System. When you get a good understanding of how it works, get back to me.
Also, see [9], and note "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause." ID was found to be in violation of previous SCOTUS rulings. •Jim62sch• 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are the most recent reverts I've done to the Kennedy article:
11:13, June 19, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (17,235 bytes) (rv - Kennedy is not an IDer, has never claimed to be an IDer and his personal beliefs beyond life being designed are quite different from what IDers believe. References are spurious at best. See talk.)
12:04, June 19, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (17,235 bytes) (Undid revision 139233424 by Orangemarlin (talk) - It's not about OR. It's about verifiability.)
22:33, June 19, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (17,235 bytes) (Undid revision 139254277 by Odd nature (talk) - And reverting. See talk about the claim and these sources.)
15:10, June 20, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (19,801 bytes) (Undid revision 139489471 by Orangemarlin (talk) - the support is in the references)
As you can see, I'm still well within the 24-hour period. I still have one revert available for the next, oh, 7 hours or so. Jinxmchue 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Report away if you think I'm in violation. I really don't give a crap because I'm in the right here. Jinxmchue 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Some else may have already reported you, not that you give a crap. 3RR is not an entitlement. You are being disruptive. Deal with it. •Jim62sch• 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a new creationist editor F00188846 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been making some dubious edits in articles related to creationism, such as claiming they are scientific theories, calling evolutionary scientists "evolutionists", and so forth. I'm sure you are familiar with the MO. Since you seem to have more experience eradicating this sort of thing, would you mind having a look at his contribution history? I've already reverted once, and I don't want to start a (necessarily unproductive) revert war. Regards, Silly rabbit 14:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll check him out...sems like there's one under every bed. :) •Jim62sch• 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Filll's on it too. Silly rabbit 14:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. F00188846 will likely find other related articles to attack. He hasn't truly done anything actionable yet, but I'm sure he will. •Jim62sch• 14:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
They are not hostile nor are they ad hominem comments: they are an expression of my observations of your editing and possible intent, an expession that is shared by others. The edits you have made to the article have served to weaken the meaning of the article, and hence have been reverted in a number of cases. Bottom line here is that you are not gaining a lot of traction for many of your edits or suggestions. This is not because the main editors are unwilling to discuss change as you have erroneously accused them of being, but because the article is delicately phrased to properly capture what ID is. As has been pointed out to you by a number of editors, you do not have a good grasp of the issue, and hence are prone to missing the the nuances of the issue. In the meantime, Margareta has done an excellent job of editing, and has not weakened anything. •Jim62sch• 19:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? FOO, you do want to weaken the article, and that is not a personal attack, but it is an observation. Orangemarlin 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, Jim, but it had to be in order raise awareness of the problems. And in the end, I think he has to take responsibility for what he has said. Str1977(smile back) 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but only after the dung hill has been acknowledged and we can begin to work towards removing it from the market place. Str1977(smile back) 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to let this rest but I must object to your mean-spirited and absurd posting on my talk page which I notice only just yet. Somehow you manage to accuse me of disruption when the one disrupting the article was Orange with his baseless and unexplained reverting of my valid edits. Because everyone was so focused on Jbolden nobody noticed his actions and I had no choice to draw attention to these. Good day, Str1977(smile back) 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't mean-spirited nor was it absurd: it was a statement of fact. Do I think OM should have calmed down before he posted? Yes. But, it's just wrong to drag that into article space -- people are allowed to vent, especially on their user talk page.
That one link sounds remarkably like my own theory of the genesis of religion. Small meteorite hits earth, big flash and boom, people knocked dowm, trees flattened, someone must have thrown it, that someone must be big, that someone must be a ... god. In other words, humans have an innate need to explain things and events, and if they don't know the actual exlanation, they make one up based on their knowledge-pool and experience.
I was at a funeral the other day...folks leaving artefacts in the coffin with the body -- just like or ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. A priest with holy water. The whole ritual of sacred words and promises based on prevailing beliefs. Things sure haven't changed much. •Jim62sch• 12:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Which may be why the true believers get so upset about a sceptical view being added to the article, and this reaction: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Campbell. Me, dunno if he's notable – yet. ... dave souza, talk 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
He may not be...but, I agree, let's give it some time. Sheesh, some of these editors are nuts. •Jim62sch• 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I reading this wrong? It seems to me that this really falls in the category of pseudo-science. I've not weighted in on this article yet, given the ongoing conflicts, but thought I'd put a toe in the water by asking an editor whose comments seem to reflect some of my thinking. You can respond here or on my talk page. RalphLendertalk 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
When NLP presents itself as science it is clearly pseudoscience; when it presents itself as a philosophy it is nonsense; and, when it presents itself as psychology it is quackery. NLP is more-or-less a hodge-podge of crackpot self-help techniques that is used promote hive-mind thinking. And those are its good points. :)
As a linguist, I'm disgusted that the word linguistic is part of NLP's name, and embarassed that a linguist (albeit not a very good one) was one of its creators. I havent been to the page in a few days, so I'll have to go back and look at it. •Jim62sch• 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your thoughts. I may put to toe in there. RalphLendertalk 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the NLP page. I'd rather given up battling with socks and so on. Be very careful though not to e-mail anyone from it (or related). Headley always returns, whatever his promises, and I made that mistake sending sources to one of his socks. Now he's creating pages in my name on the internet claiming I'm an NLP trainer! (Which I consider defamatory in itself!). Fainites 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I rarely e-mail anyone, so I'm safe there. And I still haven't gotten to the article to give it a good look-through, although I know that the edits you were making were good ones. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You know how it is when you look at an article over and over and over again you gradually lose any sense of what it looks like to third parties. Hence the need for fresh eyes. Fainites 10:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know how that is. I do a lot of editing for people, but I'll be damned if I can edit my own stuff. •Jim62sch• 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Remove your insult. I am taking this further. Fred ☻ 12:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Jeez... put the phone down russel, it's not that big a deal. ornis(t) 12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Insult? Insult You've yet to see a true insult. In fact, you see them where there are none. There's a medical name for that, y'know, starts with a p. •Jim62sch• 12:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you say no to a face like that? I didn't think so.
Time to stand up for what you believe. Not that you haven't, but let's fight for the heart soul of this project. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 07:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Damn straight Jim, the project needs you. You're one of the best editors we've got. We need more people like you as admins. ornis(t) 07:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It would appear your afd of that article is based on a simple misunderstanding on your part. I suggest you read the articles in question and then withdraw the afd. Even if I am mistaken and you are aware of the topic discussed and still think it is invalid for whatever reason, what you want is a {{merge}}, not deletion. Afd is for inherently invalid topics. Afd isn't for merging or splitting discussions, you can do that on talkpages. I'd be pleased to hear a reasonable exposition of your point of view, but so far I honestly cannot discover rhyme or reason in what you are trying to tell us. dab(𒁳) 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll not be withdrawing anything. If you want to suggest merge, do so on the afd vote.
What, praytell, is your reasoning for the split? Where was you consensus for making the split? How is it not a fork? What purpose was served by the split? Bottom line is, no matter what the reason, it is clearly a POV fork that can't be defended. And mo, afd is not for inherently invalid topics (whatever that means), it is also how one deals with POV forks. Look it up for yourself, the link is there. •Jim62sch• 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your determination Jim. I couldn't believe how much had changed so fast and am stunned that people are defending a major change made by a love-in of a couple of editors with virtually no discussion. Sophia 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sophia. I've yet to see a rational reason for the split, bolden's arguments are utter nonsense. "[A] love-in of a couple of editors with virtually no discussion"...I might've said, were I allowed to do so without violating WP:NPA, "without a clue", but I'll be nice and not say that. •Jim62sch• 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Good job NPA doesn't cover what we think huh? Sophia 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You learn a few things in debating. ;) Besides, when I first got here I thought NPA stood for the "National Pediculosis Association", although I couldn't figure out why everyone was so occupied with lice infestation. •Jim62sch• 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Dunno if news of these wee incidents reaches you, but a couple of bampots in a large Jeep Cherokee carried out an almost ridiculously inept suicide bombing attempt at Glasgow airport about 2pm UTC yesterday, trying to drive it into the main entrance of the terminal building and throw petrol bombs/molotov cocktails as well as blowing up the jeep, but getting stuck in the entrance and initially only setting the vehicle and themselves on fire then flailing about, punching the people and police who tried to rescue them from what at first seemed possibly an accident. However, although they were arrested, the jeep burned enough to cause significant damage to the building, and the immediate effect was to halt all airport activity. And this the Greenock Fair! (traditional local holiday week, so a lot of locals would be there hoping for a flight to the sun and getting stuck at the airport for a day) Anyway, the news this morning is that police are carrying out a detailed forensic search of a house in Houston, apparently linked to these bampots. Hence the silly title. As is happens, Houston is a wee old village near Paisley, about half way between here (Gourock) and Glasgow and not very far from the airport. I understand there's some newer settlement of the same name somewhere over your way. .. dave souza, talk 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I heard about that...MSNBC and the NYT have had pretty good coverage of it. The police just arrested a 5th suspect, although it's a bit unclear if it was for the incident at Glascow, or the car incident in London the other day. Some scary stuff.
Our Houston is actually a very large city (4th largest in the US) with a population of 2.1 millions. I've never been, nor do I plan on going. •Jim62sch• 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this one's actually quite pleasant and surprisingly old, though I've not spent much time there. Several houses in one of the modern developments around the village are being searched, the airport's reopened and a fifth suspect's been arrested near Liverpool, about half way between this and the London incidents. It's being treated as one incident spread over about 400 miles, so pretty local by your standards ;) They've been so ineffective it's seemed to me almost a comedy rather than a tragedy, these guys in the jeep imagining movie style bursting into the building with huge explosions and instead getting stuck in the door. One of the airport staff interviewed saw the fight, and at first thought it was taxi drivers – which leaves you wondering about those taxi drivers! However, very close to possibly massive death and injury both here and in London, and altogether a tedious nuisance for travellers and those caught up in the incidents. Anyway, couldn't resist the pun :) . . dave souza, talk 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's good they were so incompetent, but it's troubling that they got so close to success. Of course, given the Isles' proximity to the mideast, you guys seem to be much more of a target than the US, although I have little doubt that something will happen here eventually. Iraq certainly isn't helping the situation, either. •Jim62sch• 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Our proximity to Ireland has meant that we're rather accustomed to occasional terrorist outrages, proximity to the mideast has little to do with it though our history there doesn't help. The recent problems relate to immigration here from the Commonwealth so there are massive family ties and much travelling to Pakistan, where there are training camps on the Afghan frontier. Oddly enough our Scottish Nationalist administration has been making statements emphasising that the two were not born or brought up in Scotland, leaving open the possibility that they might come from England. The separatist mentality. .. dave souza, talk 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that it's easier for people from the mideast to cross through Europe and get to the UK, than it is for them to cross the ocean. The UK may also have a higher per capita population than does the US of people from the mideast.
And yes, the UK's history in the mideast is not a plus. •Jim62sch• 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Get what you mean, but the current impression is that these nuts got here on a flight from Pakistan. .. dave souza, talk 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Lovely. I guess we're stuck with terrorism for a while, then. Someday, mankind might move past adolescence (before we wander into obsolescence). •Jim62sch• 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite so. And I appreciate that you weren't trying to insult FOo – if you had been trying, he'd have known about it! Anyway, bedtime in this time zone, do please have a look over my efforts at Creationism..... dave souza, talk 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have this intense hatred of writing for the LCD. Besides, that's what we have the "simple English" wiki for. Let mo go check Creationism -- I noticed the one portion you added yesterday and it looked fine. •Jim62sch• 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops. The multiple links to references hadn't got their closing / in a couple of cases, so a bit was missing. Have tidied it up, clarified some points and subdivided the section which was looking rather long. It took a while to pull together as good cites were needed for the early history – YECs have been putting in their slant that all but a few of the early Christians were literalists. Several sources point to interpretations being primarily allegorical, though after the Gnostic heresy theologians countered that purely allegorical view with emphasis that it was literal in some ways as well. Odd how these Christians keep falling out with each other, and reinventing history to suit. By the way, there's apparently a small "creation museum" in the south of England, so we're not immune. .... dave souza, talk 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles
Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk) 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And I used it all this time with out realising its origin. D'oh! •Jim62sch• 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We're just so obsessed with your U.S. culture, such as your horror shows – guess you'll know it all, but it's pretty scary from here :( ... dave souza, talk 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have finished my draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Wikidudeman(talk) 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We're paving ahead and making good improvements over there. I thought you might want to contribute some more to it. Wikidudeman(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the criticism sections. You stated that it has been "eviscerated"? What do you mean by this? I cut down on the non-relevant parts of the criticism and expanded on the other parts. If there's anything else you think should be added or changed please just let me know so that we can discuss it and make the changes. If you see any problems in the Criticism section then just point them out so that I can fix them. The same goes with the rest of the article, just point out problems and I'll fix them as soon as I can after discussing them. Wikidudeman(talk) 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, anyone who makes comments and observations such as this has very little situational awareness and no real grasp of what is required to write an encyclopedia. •Jim62sch• 09:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Because I make a mistake in observation you won't participate or contribute to the rewrite draft? Hmmm. Wikidudeman(talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That was not a mistake in observation, it was a fundamental flaw in your analytical processes. It certainly confirmed my decision to change from neutral to oppose on your RFA: and admin who only looks at the superficial is quite dangerous.
Bottom line is that your rewrite does not seem likely to go anywhere as the rewrite itself needs a complete rewrite. Whether or not you are aware of this I do not know, but you are giving one of the biggest homeopathy POV pushers a platform to push his POV. I've also noted undue weight problems; you don't appear to have grasped that issue either. Finally, you need to fix the etymology section of the lead as I mentioned on the talk page. •Jim62sch• 10:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
1. It was a mistake in observation, as I said.
2.The rewrite is much better than the current article. I'm giving all of the contributors a chance to make proposed edits to improve the article. If you don't want to participate then that's your prerogative. If you do want to participate then make suggestions on the talk page of the draft so that I can make the corrections and cross them out once completed.
3. There's nothing wrong with giving people of different opinions platforms. Peter Morrell has contributed greatly to the draft, 90% of his contributions were very constructive and NPOV, the other 10% he dropped upon my pointing out how they were POV. Wikidudeman(talk) 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose our perspectives on reality differ signifcantly. •Jim62sch• 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hate to have to point out the obvious to you, but giving anyone a "platform" is not the point of wikipedia. You really don't seem to grasp undue weight, homeopathy is to medicine what intelligent design is biology, an undoubtably popular delusion, that flies in the face of over a hundred years of scientific discovery. ornis(t) 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, By giving people platforms on the talk pages of articles, this is a good way to engage and discuss improving the article. If we don't give someone a chance to express their opinions on articles then what's the point of it all to begin with? Secondly, I understand "undue weight" very clearly. Undue weight means specifically giving more weight in an article to a subject than exists in the context of that subject. In the Homeopathy article undue weight would mean giving more weight to the idea that homeopathy is medically effective than to the idea it isn't. Giving more weight to the supporters rather than the critics. This isn't how the draft is formated. The draft dedicates less than 2 paragraphs to discussing the successful studies concerning homeopathy (while in the same paragraphs pointing out their flaws) and dedicates several paragraphs to the criticism. The draft definitely doesn't violate undue weight policies. Moreover, It might be you who is confused about what undue weight means. Undue weight does not mean giving more space in an article to criticism of a subject than to explaining the basics of the subject itself. That is to say, undue weight does not mean discussing the opposition and criticism of homeopathy more than discussing homeopathy itself. All it means is giving more weight to the proposition that it is effective than to the proposition it isn't, which the draft obviously doesn't do. Wikidudeman(talk) 10:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me be blunt: that draft will not replace the current article. Period.
Furthermore, I don't think you get it. Which part of homeopathy is psuedoscience, thus it is to be treated as such. Why do you fail to comprehend? On the positive side, you withdrew your RFA. •Jim62sch• 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Now let me be blunt. The decision isn't just yours to make. Numerous other editors have contributed their time to working on that draft and you don't own the Homeopathy article. Wikidudeman(talk) 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, this has gone far enough, you've really worn out your good faith, you know nothing about the subject, you have no understanding of policy, and you're ego has clearly gotten the better of you reason. All I can say is thank Shiva you don't have admin tools. ornis(t) 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Several editors have contributed a lot of time to the draft and currently it's far better than the live article. If you oppose the draft then you're going to need to provide very detailed reasoning as to why so that your criticism can be addressed and relevant changes made. Please try to refrain from making accusations against me or attacking my intelligence. If you say I don't know something about homeopathy then please be specific and provide details so that I can improve my knowledge if I am indeed lacking it concerning something. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk) 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have. I've spent the last few weeks learning all about homeopathy. If the draft has factual errors it would be a great help if you could point them out so that I can fix them. That's what teamwork is about. I've read the draft over several times and tried fixing all of the factual errors that I found, however if I missed any a fresh set of eyes would benefit greatly. Thanks.Wikidudeman(talk) 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You might find this of interest Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions (1842) -- 165 years ago homeopathy was known to be pseudoscientific clap-trap. The basic problem is that you refuse to treat it as such, and in your quest for pseudo-neutrality you have given homeopathy far more creedence than it deserves. [12], [13]. •Jim62sch• 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read that already. It's by Oliver Wendell Holmes and It's actually mentioned in the draft. You seem to be misunderstanding a very important point. It's not how I personally am or am not treating homeopathy. I am trying to write the article neutrally while still following WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I am having doubts that you have even actually read the rough draft. The rough draft dedicates at most a few sentences to the supposed positive scientific studies in homeopathy and SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS to the criticism and controversy. WP:WEIGHT doesn't even say that articles on "Obvious pseudoscience" should dedicate most of its space to refuting the topic. The main idea of wikipedia is to EXPLAIN topics, even pseudoscientific topics, not to simply refute them without even explaining what they are or their histories. Homeopathy has a long history and a complex philosophy which MUST be elaborated on in the article. Explaining what homeopathy is and how it started isn't less important than explaining criticism of it. WP:WEIGHT simply means that an article should not give more credence to a subject than criticism of it if that doesn't reflect the mainstream scientific community. In the case of Homeopathy, The draft gives basically NO CREDENCE to the subject and Several Articles of criticism. You're obviously confusing "explanation" with "Credence" and I believe you should definitely read the rough-draft through to see that it clearly coincides with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Wikidudeman(talk) 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I don't confuse or more properly in this case, conflate anything; I am quite capable in such disciplines as reading, comprehension, analysis, separating the chaff from the wheat, recognising bullshit, etc. In fact, I get paid quite well for doing just that.
In any case, no duh that a topic needs to be explained before one can critique its value, thank you for mentioning rule number one of writing a good analysis. By the way, do not ever write anything to me in caps again. Do we understand each other, young man? •Jim62sch• 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
We should explain a topic before any critique of its value can be brought forward, you agree with this. Previously you were saying that the draft violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, so please explain. What % of the article should be dedicated to the topic of the article and what % should be dedicated to criticism of the topic? Are you saying that if a topic has a substantial amount of controversy that more % should be dedicated to criticism than to basic explanation of the topic, even when the basic explanation says nothing about the validity of said topic? Wikidudeman(talk) 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are you repeating my words? We already established agreement on the venerable principle regarding the proper presentation of explication and critique.
Undue Weight will be explained to you in due time when the article has had all of its grammatic and syntactical errors corrected. Here's a hint though: Water memory was conspicuously absent from your rewrite. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand undue weight already. Water memory was mentioned in it however Peter Morrell thought it shouldn't be there since Homeopathy doesn't really use the term. I can add it back if you want, You should voice your opinion about it on the drafts talk page or else I'll never know. Wikidudeman(talk) 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we need a rewrite with some historical and biographical context. That would show why Hahnemann was ahead of the times for the eighteenth century but behind the times for the twenty first century. For example, he correctly observed that syphilis has an acute phase followed by an apparent cure and later a chronic phase. He attributed this to a miasma but modern microbiology has identified a more specific culprit with the discovery of spirochetes. He did a lot of experimentation with highly toxic drugs such as monkshood, belladonna and arnica. Many toxins elicit a protective stress response that involves nausea and voiding and he may have noticed a pattern. The only concept available at the time was the law of similars. The current draft has less context than the original and therefore I think a better startCayteCayte
True. There's a world-famous hospital in my city named after Hahnemann; he was no dummy, he just attributed diseases and their cures to the wrong causes (psora being one of his major blunders). He also seemed to be unaware that many diseases naturally remit, and that whether a person with a cold took homeopathic remedies, regular medicine, or no medicine at all, the best any of them can do is relieve symptoms as all colds pass in due course. •Jim62sch• 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well make some proposals on the drafts talk page. Wikidudeman(talk) 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman(talk) 19:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you take another look at the Homeopathy draft? I think it's looking very good and I would appreciate some more input. It has drastically improved since its creation and any input would be great. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk) 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it a boycott? Or are you too busy to comment on improving the draft? If you're too busy then at least you could leave me a comment saying so. I intend to pursue this draft until it's live and I would appreciate some input from you on how to improve it. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk) 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No offense intended...I've been a bit busy. I'll look at it tomorrow. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk) 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I won't disagree that the use of the above as singular pronouns is currently substandard. But as an English teacher once told me, it is liable to become standard eventually, simply because "he" is sexist and "he or she" is awkward and excessive. So unless someone invents a neuter singular pronoun besides "it", you can count on "they", "their", etc., gaining more and more popular usage. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 11:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know ... but I occasionally like to joust at windmills. :) •Jim62sch• 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Enkinintu.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B (talk • contribs) 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you for real? I'm sure the artist who's been deed for millennia will be suing us for copyright infringement. •Jim62sch• 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Clearlightalbum.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Clearlightalbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was deleted for reasons unknown. •Jim62sch• 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
And could you go take a look at the talk page? I am not sure if you examined the diff in detail, or not. It was a massive change, and in my understanding, original research /synthesis. Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised you do not know, since you are clearly the smartest person on WP. Even a moron like me knows.--Filll (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
D'oh, now I get it. Thanks Filll for jarring my memory. Ra2007 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Jim62sch, I think the issue has been resolved on the talk page. Ra2007 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it's time to break out Greek. ROFL. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Pleas undo your revert. The statement is clearly disputed and unsourced, and should therefore be tagged as such until the issue has been settled. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh Jim, now you're on Guido's bad list. Better duck now, because he's going to make you eat ossewurst. Dank U well. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 18:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, it's Guido, man ... Dutch or not he probably prefers lasagna.
Guido, nee, ik zal niet veranderen. •Jim62sch• 19:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm cooking homemade spaghetti, salsa di pomadori, polpette e salssice ... I'll go look. ;) •Jim62sch• 19:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What you wrote means "I will not change". A Freudian mistake, perhaps? Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't wear slips ... Oh, I see, a Freudian slip. No, not that either, just a typo -- forgot "het" -- you know, just like you forgot the terminal e on Please. •Jim62sch• 20:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)And a happy, enjoyable and continuing celebration of the solstice! Orrabest, dave souza, talk 21:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Your failure to assume good faith, and accusing me of NPOV is not grounds to remove challenges to material in objections to evolution, and is totally inappropriate. Not everyone who makes any edit that might be considered in any way opposed to your view of evolution is doing so for POV reasons. Furthermore, I think you are making edits for POV reasons, and you need to stop. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Nor is NPOV valid grounds for reverting an edit. "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." in Help:Reverting. From now on, please assume good faith, and do not revert edits without a good reason. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, this isn't the first time you've removed challenges in articles. How in the world can the [citation needed] tag violate NPOV? That doesn't even make sense! Please read [[Wikipedia:Verifiability; challenged statements need to be sourced or removed. You cannot go around removing challenges to statements!
I think that one of the things that WP is WP:NOT is a snyrting.--Filll (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn, Gus is an arrogant little shit, isn't he? Also just a bit dense -- he fails to realise that I only revert with good reason. Nice try with the high dudgeon, though, Gus -- almost effective. Now, to see what Gus hath wrought.
Oh, by the way Gus, a fact tag placed in vio of WP:POINT, i.e., when something is stated that is known to the populace at large (i.e., the earth goes round the sun), can be removed. Do a bit more homework, Sparky. As for your edits -- they are indeed POV, and two were totally incorrect. •Jim62sch• 13:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Just happened in and noticed some action here on Christmas morning. Guettarda left a bunch of these Christmas buables all over the place, so don't feel too dang special there, kid. I too say, "Merry Christmas" to you, even if you're Jewish, which I know you're not-- but even if you were, today I might still say "merry christmas", and might also attempt to justify it by saying that it's generic holidayspeak for "happy holidays". So, you say Hanukkah is already over. ... Oh. ... uhh ... Well, then, taking a cue from one of many interesting Wikipedia NPOV battles, I might say "Holiday greetings". But that sounds so nondescript, you say. Well, tough, g'ol dangit. ... shades of Rush Limbaugh's feminazis, Salman Rushdie, and other modern icons and posterchildren of political correctness, I say holiday greetings, to you and all those you care most about. ;-) And a belated solstice greeting to you too, and happy Kwanzaa too... Kenosis (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL and thanks. Just for the record I do Saturnalia and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. :) •Jim62sch• 19:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
People should not really be edit warring over BLPs. Seeing as that article has had problems for ages, I went and did the best course of action I thought: stubbifying to a non-controversial state. Will(talk) 13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
People shouldn't be edit warring over anything, BLP articles are no different. However, the "orange box" or whatever you called it was for WP:COI not edit warring. There was no reason to change the article to a stub, sorry Will, but given the logic you used on that article we could probably zap 10% of our articles (BLP or not, it's really irrelevant) at any given time. •Jim62sch• 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't getting rid of crap be good for the encyclopedia, though? The orange-side boxes aren't for decoration, they're to get people to improve the article. Will(talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
In theory, yes. However, my definition of crap may vary from yours and vice versa. One man's crap is often another man's monument. •Jim62sch• 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
... when one wants to make substantial changed to an article, edits that fundamentally change the verey tenor of the argument, that person is the one who should be coming to the talk page to try to build consensus first
If I'm not quoting you out of context, then it seems like you believe that it's okay for an article to make an argument. Am I hearing you correctly?
If so, do you mean to say that it's okay for Wikipedia to give a justification for a thesis or idea even when it's controversial? That is, when substantial numbers of people disagree with the thesis or idea?
I thought rather that we were supposed to step back and merely describe the arguments: not make them ourselves. You know, "describe each viewpoint fairly"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
So presumably you mean edits that fundamentally change the verey tenor of the argument being described, and of course describing each viewpoint fairly without giving undue weight to minority views amongst experts on the subject. Seems ok to me. ... dave souza, talk 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
He reads it as the argument made, rather than described. That would not be ok, but perhaps Jim did not mean to say that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
People approach Wikipedia in different ways. Some try to live up to its intention, others simply do what they can get away with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite so, Guido. Try to be constructive and follow policy, and you'll get on much better. ... dave souza, talk 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Only with those that do the same, is my experience. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
"Argument" was supposed to be "article" -- and no Guido, it wasn't a Freudian slip, just sloppy typing (and obviously I mistyped "very" as well).
In any case Ed, no, an article in an encyclopedia should never make an argument, although having seen your work in Conservapedia I'm not so sure you would agree. Admittedly, you are not the biggest proponent of using articles to make arguments on that wretched yet unwittingly humourous site, but my point stands.
And Guido, I hope you enjoyed jumping to contusions and rendering oblique ad homs as much as I enjoyed watching you do so. I do love it when an editor proves that the negative impression I have of him is accurate. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 15:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Especially when that editor is you, I take it. Saves me the effort. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Although I am Jewish, I'm not a big ADL fan. I don't "jump" on a single posting (see Will Smith#Hitler controversy).
But what if a section of an article is badly biased? Can we be bold and just start fixing it? Or must the repairman first gain "consensus" from others - including the people who wrote the biased text?
You might take a look at Politicization of science, where I'm tackling the ID (and evolution) section. The "tenor" of the argument (oops, I mean section!) amounted to an endorsement of the view that "only evolution opponents" are engaging in politicization - not proponents.
Would you say that suing a school district was a use of legal or economic power? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Just remember that bias is often in the eye of the beholder, and depends on whether one's ox is being gored. Of course, some bias is blatant, for example the writing of a "hit piece" on a particular person or subject. On the other hand removing "negative" yet reliable and verifiable information from an article is equally biased. Hmmm, I think I just described NPOV.
Politicization tends to be significantly more from the anti-evolution, pro-ID, pro-creationist (no pun intended) side than from the evolution side. Recall for example, that in the Scopes Trial the state had politicized evolution by making it illegal to teach in Tennessee, Darrow and Mencken merrely took the opportunity to capitalise on the state's actions. Ditto in Dover, where the school board had tried to ram creationism into the science classroom.
As for the last, are you referring to Dover? •Jim62sch• 17:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me how assorted anti-evolution activists like to characterize the dispute as an example of violation of free speech, or an example of some big powerful biased force beating up and abusing some innocent citizens just trying to give their children a good education. The reality is far different, by my observation.--Filll (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
To get a little perspective on this, let's imagine my county passing a law stating that every single church, mosque, temple, synogogue or other religious body is required by law for the religious leader to stand up in front of his or her congregants and tell them regularly that every religious teaching they have received or will be given is a load of foul stinking crap. If the religious leader refuses to do so, they will be fired, or go to jail or be fined or both. Not only this, but the congregants will be required to pay for these "load of crap" messages. Do you think any religious people would be offended?
Let's bring this a bit closer to home. Suppose I went with a bunch of police to the Unification Church and forced "Father" to announce, at implied gunpoint, that he was a jerk and a liar and had preached nothing but bullsh*t for years? Would that be fair do you think? Do you think you and other moonies would object? What if I added insult to injury and forced all the moonies to pay me to administer this law, or go to prison? Would that ruffle your feathers a bit? Suppose I held immense rallies where I had tens of thousands of people marching and screaming for imposition of this law? Suppose I yelled at the rally about how all moonies are the spawn of the devil and are going to hell, and I want to help them on their way as fast as possible? Suppose I blamed moonies for communism and abortions and Nazis and hunger and diseases and teenage suicide and drug use and homelessness? Screaming at the top of my lungs, spewing hate and anger? It might look like my rally was encouraging people to go out and stomp the stuffing out of moonies, right? Suppose I made up a special name for moonies, and called them something derogatory like "moonkooks" or worse. Would that be fair? Probably not, right?
Well suppose you complained about this, and I said you were violating my right to free speech? It is my free speech right to scream at every moonie how wrong and evil and stupid they are, right? How they are damned to hell and deserve to go to hell, right? It is part of my rights to force moonie religious leaders to renounce all the teachings of the Church, right? And in fact, my justification was just that I am only exercising my free speech rights and I want every moonie to be exposed to the truth, and that it is just for their own good. Do you think that would be fair?
So do you see why "evolutionists" might be a bit irritated with the creationists and the claims that creationists are getting a raw deal and having their free speech rights restricted? What is wrong with dealing with religion in religious settings, and with science in science settings? Tell me that before you spew more nonsense about how awful "evolutionists" are to poor innocent creationists.--Filll (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to teach creationism in the US, you can:
teach it in homeschools
teach it in church
teach it in religious schools
teach it in private schools
teach it at home to your own children
teach it in philosophy class, religion class, debate class, current affairs class, history class, psychology class, sociology class in secular public schools
teachers can teach it in science class in secular public schools if they are not required to do so, but do it voluntarily; of course, if they do not have the approval of the school administration, school board and parents there might be consequences to this. Oh well, that is US employment law, right?
So, when I look at this list, I wonder, why on earth are creationists complaining? They are complaining because they cannot use the power of the law to force teachers in secular public school science classes to indoctrinate other people's children in the creationists religion using other people's money. Sounds like a lot of nerve to me... They deserve all the vilification they have earned themselves with this sort of outrageous claim.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with one exception: If any teacher ever tries to teach creationist mumbo-jumbo to my children I will end his career. •Jim62sch• 21:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is completely baffling to me. Here in the UK the mere idea of teaching ID would cause national outrage. Even Sunday schools don't teach creationism here! Guy (Help!) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
America missed the enlightenment. Admittedly the founders (who weren't fundies as is often claimed) were enlightened, but once they died, America passed into a dark period. Sadly, it still exists. In America it is good to proclaim one's Christianity (well, we might tolerate Jews here ... sometimes, at least {{sarcasm}}) in the loudest voice possible. Bunch of benighted yahoos if you ask me. :) •Jim62sch• 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said, there might be consequences.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to jump in on this obvious discussion form. Extraordinary claim. "Even Sunday schools don't teach creationism here!"{{cn}} "They are complaining because they cannot use the power of the law to force teachers in secular public school science classes to indoctrinate other people's children in the creationists religion using other people's money."{{cn}} Another extraordinary claim. Sorry to disrupt the choir. Ra2007 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't live in the UK as Guy does, but so far as I know, evolution was accepted in the UK long before the Scopes trial cast Americans as backwater buffoons. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's backwater buffoons without bad British teeth to you sir. Ra2007 (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well Ra2007, I cannot speak for the UK, however, I have observed this over and over in the US. I see it in the legal filings in all the court cases, I hear it in the speeches of creationists. What is going on, is far different from what they claim. If creationists just left it out of the public school science classrooms, do you think there would be any trouble? And from my careful reading of the law and the supreme court decisions, it is not that it is forbidden in public school science classrooms, just that school districts cannot require it to be introduced in public school science classrooms. That is all. Done voluntarily, there is no problem (except for civil lawsuits, and firings because of the at-will employment law, or contract violations, etc). So cry me a river. If you do not want your kid exposed to evolution, there is no problem with avoiding it. However, it is a bit much to want to force your neighbors to teach creationism to other people's children with other people's money, and a brand of creationism that violates the religious beliefs of most people on planet earth.--Filll (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you almost entirely here. And I personally don't want Genesis creationism taught as fact in the public schools either (at least not without informed school choice), and I think this is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. I also do want my own children exposed to evolutionism, though as a theory and not as a fact. Ra2007 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Last I saw, evolution, along with relativity, gravity, quantum physics, thermodynamics, etc., is a theory -- in the true sense of the word. All can be falsified. Creationism on the other hand, is not a theory, it's merely religious dogma masquerading as fact. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The most common, and most ill-informed, complaint about evolution is that it is just a theory. It is a theory.
It is also a fact, since a scientific fact refers to a piece of data like an observation or an outcome of an experiment, and change of allele fequency (the definition of evolution) is observed in the field and in the laboratory.
You are directed to evolution as theory and fact, although I am in the middle of massively rewriting it, so it has some stylistic problems I am ignoring while I produce a bigger and better version.--Filll (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. There is a thread about you at ANI, WP:ANI#User:Jim62sch, bullying, and assuming good faith. Without knowing the background of the dispute, Thumperward (talk·contribs) is correct in that your statement about him at Talk:Nostradamus was out of line regardless of any conceivable circumstances. If you are in disputes with this user, please work with him and others on the relevant article talk page(s) to find consensus, or if that does not work, at least do not snipe at him needlessly. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (The relevant diff is here.Sandstein (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for uploading Image:FabricOfCosmos.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Log of blocks and bans and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.
All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Wikipedia, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued. The Committee also asks that any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, be reported to them immediately.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 13:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I shall endeavour to abide by the terms of the decision. My modus operandi is to not use any of the above-mentioned modi actionis in my Wiki interactions, as it has been ex eo tempore Vicipædiam subscripsi. •Jim62sch• 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Not bad at all, and probably the best that could have been hoped for given the huge misunderstanding at the root of all this. IMO, that "bullying" weasel-word is the rub; anyone harboring a grudge may be tempted to use that in order to thwack you for the "everyday" incivility that can arise during heated discussions. So you're gonna have to keep a cool, cool head.... and for that I know of no better solution than rearranging your belief system to acknowledge a Higher Power. It's time you became a believer, Jim! Accordingly, I hereby baptize thee (note: per JzG, remedy intended to remain well within Geneva Conventions), and refer you to my favorite concise explication of Deity, here (final paragraph). Salud! --Jim Butler(talk) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim: in the end it turned out OK, although the bit about "bullying" concerns and befuddles me. But that was why I requested that "reasonably" be added to the enforcement action.
Most of my purported incivility is just sarcasm, but sometimes ... well, I might cross the line a bit. ;)
I want to thank you for your support: I think it was important for Arbcom to see that even though you and I have had some interesting exchanges, there's no animosity. It helps show that some of us just like witty badinage, repartee, banter, etc., and are smarter than a minnow with three heads.
One of my favourie Python scethes, silly and short, but hilarious. (OK, I like the Dead Parrot, Cheese Shop and Architect's skethes better, but...). The link to the google group is pricess! Again, thanks, and in keeping with my above Roman theme, Vale Iacome! •Jim62sch• 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, man, I'd forgotten about the Architect sketch till now. That was devastating, up there with Crunchy Frog. I think the fish-slapping dance had to have been a Terry Jones creation, just so absurd. And the Hungarian Phrasebook (which about sums up my grasp of Latin)... That stuff severely affected my (de)formative years, and I'm now reveling in having scored the entire set on umpteen DVDs for the low, low price of $40-something off Amazon.
You're a gem among Wikipedians, so shine on, ye diamond. --Jim Butler(talk) 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about Crunchy Frog -- "We use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq..." Lark's vomit? Ram's bladder? LOL -- I'm getting hungry.:) There's a translation page about the phrasebook that's priceless. I've used the Greek and the Basque as part of my work sig. (Guess that makes me a crazy diamond :)
The entire TV series for $40? I'm rather jealous -- I have some of the episodes on VHS and most of the movies on VHS and DVD ... but that's just not the same.
So how are the alt-med and comp-med articles going? I've not been to them for a bit, and I gave up on homeopathy because there was too much drama. While I don't accept homeopathy, I still wanted a truly neutral and objectively informative article, but too many folks are too embedded in the pro- and anti- camps for that to happen. Hmmmm....maybe if we prnted out WP:NPOV, reduced the paper to a powder, added it to a solution and then diluted it 1,000K times, and then .... OK, I'll stop ... :) •Jim62sch• 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jim. Kind of a red queen race on those articles, but some positive developments. I too have found the CAM stuff to be so freaking contentious that editing just gets tiresome, but there are some good moments, e.g. finding some useful commentary on CAM from the Institute of Medicine, about as V an RS as can be.
Just re-read your comment on NPOV and homeopathy and laughed out loud (oops, it's 3 AM). Yeah, I agree, I'm quite skeptical of it as well, but it seems some editors are over-eager to stick a fork in it and declare it done. It's good that we now have WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience to guide us (always hated the gratuitous slapping-on of labels), but not all editors seem convinced that "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" requires a damned source... cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 08:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
While I'm highly skeptical of CAM, I also know that some herbs (for example) have been known for some time to effect the body in a way considered to be positive by the users. Salix alba, coca leaves, the fruits of the poppy, green tea, ginseng, and so on have been used for medicinal purposes for millennia. On the other hand, many herbals have nasty side effects that are dissipated when scientists isolate the active ingredient. I'm less bothered by complimentary meds, as they are generally taken along with pharmaceuticals (hence he name complimentary :) , than I am by substances of, at best, dubious value that are used to replace proven pharaceuticals.
I agree with the editors who view homeopathy as a pseudoscience, but a damned source is definitely needed for the statement you note. Besides, there is no way to prove that homeopathy will never find a valid cure for something. I kind of doubt it will, but then again, when I was a kid my Mom used mercurichrome on our cuts, the leading theories about the existence of the moon were that it had spun off from the earth or had been captured (while the likely answer is sort of a combination of the two), there was no string theory, gravity was still wedded to older theories and the warping of space was seen as wierd, the existence of black holes was sci-fi crap, and global warming had never been heard of. In other words, ya never know. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, herbs are among the most promising and most dangerous CAM's, precisely because (a) many are active, and (b) dangerous interactions may occur between other herbs or approved drugs. For example, my father found out that taking broccoli sprout extract counteracted his blood-thinning medication (coumadin), and this was post-surgery, when a lethal blood clot was a real possibility. Yet combinations can be good, both in herbs (tea is so much more pleasant than popping a caffeine pill) and in pharmaceuticals (as with the "cocktail" of drugs in HIV treatment). Since our knowledge base for safety and efficacy of herbs, alone and in combination, is still in its infancy, caveat emptor (or eater - what's that in Latin?). (For a complementary therapy likely to "do no harm", homeopathy does seem hard to beat... I suspect its beneficial effects revolve around ritual; then again, sometimes highly invasive ritual may avail as well.... weird eh?)
Agree in your second para above. I remember mercurochrome well, and thalidomide for that matter. I love this quote from John Archibald Wheeler: "We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
To the extent that Wheeler is right, theologians will have plenty to keep talking about... Jim Butler(talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that ritual does play a part in any perceived efficacy of homeopathic remedies, just as it does with a placebo. Of course, the same could be said of meds used to alleviate the symptoms of or treat flu or the common cold: as they are generally self-limiting. Generally, folks don't take those meds untill the illness has peaked, so recovery is almost a foregone conclusion at that point. On the other hand, antibacterials and antparasitics appear to be highly effective as the only self-limitation on bacteria and parasites is usually the death of the host.
Oh, "eater" could be either edor or commedor.
Theologians shall babble forever and their babbling will be sought and accepted by the vulgus who so clealy fear unbridged gaps, and who fear science as they believe it takes the mystery out of existence. Sigh. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Caveat commedor. Like the sound of that, with a slight (if eytmologically wrong) cautionary ring of "commode".
Common cold: with due caveats for the edor, this stuff kicks ass, IME... funny my (unsolicited, sincere) quote shows up in Google. A great deal of that Chinese pattern stuff is intersubjectively verifiable, btw... spleen qi deficiency... means specific things.
Science as anti-mystery... I just don't grok that. Science is elegant; I've felt that way as long as I can remember. Elegance is mystery (beauty?) meets intelligence...or something like that.
Speaking of caveats and worldviews, I took the worldview test again; very amusing glimpse of one's attitudes. Very recursive and strange, like life "was meant" to be, I guess. :-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"intersubjectively verifiable" ... sounds like "plausable deniability". :) Nah, I know what you mean.
Agreed re science. I've loved science ever since I was a wee nipper. If anything, science opens up new mysteries; unfortunately, some folks misread that aspect.
I took it again...What is Your World View? A bit different from the last one ...
You scored as a Materialist
Materialist 88%; Postmodernist 81%; Existentialist 75%; Modernist 69%; Cultural Creative
25%; Romanticist 25%; Idealist 13%; Fundamentalist 13%. Big jump in existentialism. Odd. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It may have been better to let an administrator handle the unarchiving at Talk:Creation science, since now the page history is all at Archive 12. Just a thought. Silly rabbit 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And you missed the bullshit lectures I received from a couple of do-gooders about my vandalism tag I placed on the fine, good faith editor (who is obsessed with panties for some reason) who decided to make this one-man reversion. Sometimes I just want to scream. Hold on....did you hear that? Orangemarlin 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Irritating isn't it. I got a friendly lecture from some well meaning soul --who clearly didn't read the discussion he restored-- suggesting I should have assumed good faith on octoplus' part... humpf. ornis 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Silly Rabbit, you might have a point, but I at least wanted it to get to something that represented our recent efforts. OM, that panties accusation sounds serious. ;) Ornis, yes it's irritating, and the AGF mantra is so overplayed it makes me want to scream.•Jim62sch• 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
My panties are a cute pink. Orangemarlin 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for comment on this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps you might make explicit those "few facts" I have left out of my account, and explain precisely how I did not follow correct archiving procedure. Banno 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you wish, if you wish. I think the fact that several well-repected Admins disagreed with your actions speaks volumes.
Besides, what is so hard about saying, "oops, I screwed up". Is pride that big of a deal for you that you cannot admit to an error? If so, that's sad. •Jim62sch• 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, it would really help if the three of you stopped digging in and ceased throwing around accusations, and instead focused on the content. It is very simple: a category here is always going to be incomplete, and is going to lack additional information on the signing people, e.g. their degrees and states of origin. A list is therefore a more comprehensive way of showing this information. Some of us are trying to improve accessibility here, and others are mistaking that for evil censorship, or something. Change category to list, problem solved - it's that simple. >Radiant< 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Which misses the point, yes? The point of the DRV is that you closed the CFD wrongly, yes? My other points were regarding your edits and their summaries, yes? This has nothing to do with list vs category, unless you've shifted the discussion to take some of the heat off of you. It's just that simple.
And "the three of you" refers to? Do tell. •Jim62sch• 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, well, well, it seems Radiant conviently removed this from his talk page (not surprising, really, most people hate criticism) •Jim62sch• 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
==CFD Signatories==
- Read this from the above, "An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."" I suggest that you retract your accusation.
- Also, this 03:25, 12 July 2007 Radiant! (Talk | contribs) (47,039 bytes) (→Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" - yawn) is an edit summary an admin should never make -- it is dismissive and violates the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Neither should you write: that was predictable) -- that violates civil, appears to be an ad hom, and is ascribing motives (apparently without ever having read WP:Canvass.•Jim62sch• 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the point is to resolve the issue. >Radiant< 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Righhhht, and we resolve issues by using snarky edit summaries. Yep, that makes total sense. @@
And then there's the fact that your allegation of canvassing was asinine. Yep, that too resolves issues. •Jim62sch• 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Watch it Jim. There seem to be a bunch of admins who ban editors who show any uncivil behavior towards them, but ignore others who are uncivil. Orangemarlin 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's known as a conflict of interest violation (not that I'm wikilawyering here). Besides, I'd say it's pretty hard to charge me with a vio of WP:CIVIL when one has violated same in one's editing summary, when one has ascribed motives, and when one has falsely accused an editor of canvassing so that one can try to stop an inconvenient DRV that just might show that the admin who closed the CFD did so improperly. And by the way, all these above are known as "observations" -- I think they're still allowed here.
Oh, and note that I called the action asinine, not the admin. Ad rem isn't the same as ad hom, in fact their not even close.
And beware, OM, you might be accusing some admins of having a penchant for partiality and playing favourites. ;) •Jim62sch• 16:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've watched two good editors banned by Banno (interesting name now that I think about it) and Radiant for very specious reasons. But they ignore the vast incivility and down right personal attacks by those they favor. I don't get it!! At least be consistent. If you ban one person for incivility, hell ban them all. If you let one go for the same offense, then what makes one banned and the other not? I confoozled. Orangemarlin 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You just caught the Banno pun? It reminds me of umprires who have different strike zones from batter to batter. Usually a sign of turbatio mentis. •Jim62sch• 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And of course, those umpires toss players who argue that the strike zones are different. Yeah, I'm a bit dense. I completely missed the Banno humor. Duh.Orangemarlin 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say your first sentence sums it up nicely. Of course, what's even worse is when the ump follows the player back to his dugout to see if he's still griping -- that was a favourite tactic of Joe West. •Jim62sch• 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. •Jim62sch• 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It was a warning, as in stop before you get there. Capisce? •Jim62sch• 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what part of "even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule" this great genius did not understand? --Filll 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You are in violation of WP:POINT with this nonsense: [16]. Keep in mind that escalation often turns ugly, and fake shields don't work against reality. Ponder. •Jim62sch• 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how do you see that edit as a point. I'm curious about your reasoning. --Abu badali(talk) 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You just happened, at random, to pick 7 or 8 images uploaded by Kenosis for deletion? Yeah, OK, and that bridge in Brooklyn is still for sale. Bottom line is, you don't like to lose and went after Kenosis' pics in retraliation. Why? Because he made you look the fool. Yep, that's my take on it, and I think the take of a number of other editors as well. Remember, revenge is a dish best served cold. •Jim62sch• 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at random. I nominated them because I knew they have been uploaded under the exact same failed reasoning of Image:Oneill.jpg. Please, be informed that, from now on, I may choose to ignore your comments if you feel in the right to ignore WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm still wondering what you meant to say with that line about "fake shields against reality" (did you mean real-world dangers?). --Abu badali(talk) 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Jim just read (and spoke) my mind, and now nice of you to confirm it. It's obvious retaliation. Odd nature 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, definite retaliation.
You know Abu, AGF works both ways, and civility is far more than how one speaks or writes. If you stab someone in the back while cooing gentle nothings in their ear, are you being civil?
If you look at your page and ponder the shield comment for a bit I'm sure the neurons and synapses will fire and the light shall be upon you. •Jim62sch• 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think either of the comments you made on Talk:Denialism were helpful or constructive? If so, what do you think they accomplished? If not, were they a mistake? Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a comprehension problem? You do not like criticism (unless it's wrapped up in nice fluffy slippers), and like too many editors you cry foul when you are criticised.
Now, a question for you: Do you think a majority of your comments on the same page have been constructive? They've seemed just a bit tendentious and stupid to me. What have you accomplished? Nothing except wasting bytes and time. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I fully appreciate constructive criticism. Do you have any? I do believe that most of my comments have been constructive. It's interesting that you think my comments are stupid when I'm not the one contradicting myself (that was the person I was replying to who, when confronted with the evidence of this, suddenly changed topics to Abbas vs. Palestian nationalism). Also, how in the world do you figure that my comments were tendentious? Seeing as how you and I probably agree on far more than we disagree, what bias exactly do you think I was showing?
Now, I'll admit that I occasionally cross the line. And, when I do so, I admit it. If you do not acknowledge your mistakes then you give off the impression that you are no wiser today than you were yesterday. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Very philosophical. How does changing a topic (assuming that to be the case) become self-contradictory? Besides, Guettarda is a highly respected editor and admin on Wikipedia, and I've bever really seen him screw up an assertion or argument. Now, given that RevolutionaryLuddite is a clear POV-pusher, your defense of him speaks volumes about your own judgment, POV and motives. Hence, any edits you make are placed under a microscope and viewed with a skeptical eye.
In the meantime, yes I agree with you regarding admitting a mistake, we all make them, although I don't know that admission of an error necessarily equates to an increase in wisdom.
Self-contradictory is when you re-assert "Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial" (and put it in bold, no less) immediately after quoting "In his thesis, Abbas wrote that the estimated number of Jews killed during World War II was 'less than one million.'" from the Malone article. Changing the topic is a typical strategy that some people employ when their contradictions are pointed out to them. "Guettarda is a highly respected editor and admin on Wikipedia, and I've never really seen him screw up an assertion or argument." Now you have. (Granted, pay enough attention to me, and you'll also see me screw up assertions, arguments, and hosts of other things. No one is perfect. I do appreciate people admitting when they've made a mistake, though.)
"Now, given that RevolutionaryLuddite is a clear POV-pusher, your defense of him speaks volumes about your own judgment, POV and motives."
I don't take that as a given. He has a POV, as do you and I. He has not "pushed" that POV, but has engaged in civil debate. In fact, the very problem is that you (and others) do take it as a given. As you've obviously already read my user page, I would presume that my Wikipedia philosophy should explain exactly why I would defend him. I'm glad to hear that my defense of him speaks volumes about my own judgment, POV, and motives, but I'm afraid that perhaps you don't speak the right language to understand it. In short, I think you assume far too much — about me and about Revolutionaryluddite.
As for my link to my Mom's web-site and services, WP:NOT mentions articles, not user pages. If you can show me where it forbids that, then I will remove it. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
My horizons are quite sufficiently expanded, and I see the shades of gray better than most. In this case, I noted the reliability of the source, a subject that you have not touched on. If the source is reliable, then Guettarda is wrong, but, if it is not then he is right. That was the point he was making. Address that and you can clear up the issue.
AGF is a crock and a Utopian dream divorced from reality and human experience. I assume neutral faith (shades of gray and all that). Good faith is something one earns. Hence there are editors with whom I disagree and yet respect, and there are other editors with whom I agree but don't respect. Now, is that enough volume for you? •Jim62sch• 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You claim to see shades of gray, but I wonder why you think RL is a POV-pusher, if it's not for the fact that he doesn't agree with you. As for the source being reliable, although it is a reasonable objection, that was not Guettarda's claim. He stated (two or three times) that "[only] the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial". He never addressed the reliability of the George Mason University (Malone) article, the quote which I used being excerpted from Israel National News, which is almost the definition of a biased source (presumably, however, one could verify this by actually reading Abbas' thesis). Of course, the Malone article also uses information from the Anti-Defamation League. Guettarda made a patently false statement, however, as it wasn't the reliability he was talking about. That you've tried to change the subject to its reliability suggests to me that you realize this is true, but for some reason foreign to me, you are unwilling to admit it. If you want a second example of an error of his, check out his [Control-F] comment, and then try it on that article. The first use of the word "denial" does not occur until the ADF reference, which is not the one I quoted.
As for AGF being a crock, I'm afraid you've proven why it's not. If you start with neutral faith, then one misstep takes that person into negative faith via your "earning" analogy. From then on, it seems that you're inclined to try to find something wrong with them, putting them further and further into negative faith. (Vicious circle, see also). Has it occurred to you that perhaps there's a reason for that policy other than Utopian dreams? Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 21:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You really need to learn to read between the lines I think; Guettarda's point was pretty clear: reliability was the issue, and I've not changed the subject at all (although I will now: you seem to make the accusation of rebus mutatis frequently: are you aggravated that you can't control people's minds like you can the “mind” of a computer? Perhaps your research on the CA3 region of the hippocampus will resolve that thorny issue.) Alas, people are not mere computers, and they will not respond exactly as you’d like them to, and their thought process will not be yours.
As for RL, his edits speak for themselves – once he tried to weaken the creationism portion of denialism, he showed his true colors. Also, his “don’t write to me because I can’t stop writing back” was very reminiscent of an habitator sub ponte.
Neutral faith simply means just that: neutral. Having to earn “good faith” or respect, or conversely, earning bad faith is the way the world works. Yes, we could all put on blinders and pretend everything is sunshine and Falernian wine; that people are all good, have good intentions and are pure and honest; and that by living in perfect harmony we can create a jingle for a soft drink. And by the way, I don’t have to look for flaws or negative items – they smack me in the face.
The reason for AGF is simple: the AGF'ers want to be nice to other people because they fear others not being nice to them; a nice way of avoiding mutually assured destruction no doubt, but also utterly self-serving and yet self-defeating, no no doubt quite pleasing to the mental homunculi. •Jim62sch• 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I'll just never understand you and vice-versa. It certainly doesn't help when you use Latin expressions that are somewhat obscure, including one that Google has never heard of. However, I'm going to try just a little more. First of all, in re-reading Guettarda's post, it seems that I did take him out of context. Interestingly enough, his third quoting of himself doesn't show that, but if you look at the very first time he said it, you can see that he does acknowledge that Malone's article discusses Holocaust denial as it applies to Abbas. Why you two couldn't just pull up that one line instead of assuming bad faith is beyond me. Let me say it again, so it's not missed on you, I made a mistake in selective quoting. (After I'm finished here, I'll say the same thing on that page.) That said, you're making just as big a mistake with RL (although I doubt you'll admit it). Look again at his arguments against the inclusion of Creationism as a form of Denialism. Look at all of them and don't selectively pick and choose what you want to believe. His complaint is that Theistic Evolution is not Denialism (which is backed up by Kenosis — is he also a POV-pusher now?), and that Theistic Evolution is listed as a form of Creationism. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you can admit you were wrong about him, you can begin to see the mistake of assuming "neutral faith". Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the joys of being a linguist who is fluent in Latin is that you can just make up your own Latin terms. No, that probably doesn't help comprehension, but habitator sub ponte sounds much nicer than troll. (See, I can be "nice"...sort of).
As for you, I've never assumed any bad faith on your part, I've just questioned what you've said -- although defending RL does bother me given his edits. But, I'm sure that my defense of Guettarda bothered you for a while. OK, so we're past that now, and I don't think you have any "bad" intentions, and I respect you for admitting an error.
As for theistic evolution, I'd say that's more hedging one's bets than it is denialism -- in a sense one denies that either premiss, creationism and evolution, is fully right, while still accepting the scientific evidence without "damning" one's soul. Kind of hypocritical, but so be it. However, that wasn't the only change RL made. Had it been, I could have supported him. Who knows, I might one day support him on something -- I haven't written him off.
I'll never see any error with assuming neutral faith: it's stood me in good stead throughout my life -- I assume nothing initially, thus my "take" on someone or his/her actions is objective rather than subjective. I find subjectivity to be a bore, and emotionalism to be a chore. •Jim62sch• 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"As for theistic evolution, I'd say that's more hedging one's bets than it is denialism" — then we agree completely. "God of the gaps" being the term that I've heard most frequently to describe it. Um, Deus ex lacuna or something like that — would you guess I've never had Latin?!? (You would? While we're at it — rebus mutatis? The closest I've got is "thus change".) Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see y'all have stopped sub-ponteificating about AGF – it's my weapon of choice. Rebus? Is he no thon detective fella frae Tollcross? Anyway, there's more to theistic evolution than might be surmised – while searching for info on the Revd. Baden Powell, I found this essay, if you skip down to page 10 there's discussion of early to mid 19th century evolutionists aiming to reconcile nature, God, and man with a "new" natural theology. Old Powell had some interesting ideas there... dave souza, talk 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we all agree on theistic-evolution. (Now if we had a category on "Hypocrisy"...) My biggest problem with the God of the Gaps (aside from its inherent hypocrisy) is that it's irrational ... but then so are theism and atheism. OK, maybe my mind is more computer-like. Check my hippocampus. :)
Rebus mutatis just means "changing the subject" (rebus is plural dative of res "thing, matter, subject" -- the Romans prefered that res was in the plural much of the time. Weird.) I'll have to read the essay, but I also want to read Ben's theses...my reading list is getting backed up. •Jim62sch• 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The hippocampus is very uncomputer-like, although it is implicated in the quasi-logic problem known as transitive inference. It is also used for other configural learning problems, as well as trace conditioning, spatial learning, and episodic memory. FWIW, I'm fairly certain that my hippocampus is defective, as I have both poor spatial learning and episodic memory — I can't say that I've ever really tested my trace conditioning or configural learning abilities. (Great, now I have to create articles on transitive inference — loosely deciding that if A>B and B>C then A>C — and configural learning — which involves choosing responses based not just on the stimuli but on how those stimuli are configured with respect to each other as in transitive inference. Perhaps later today when I've got several simulations running.) Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 12:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a perfect excuse for me going off topic. After a saddening day trying to help the victims of a petition subsequently retitled Dissent from Darwinism, the Beeb puts on When the Levees Broke and I end up watching it past my bedtime. A bad day to have empathy, must go and tend my electric sheep now. .. dave souza, talk 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, my hippocampus is OK then ... I do very well with those items. In any case, the brain is a fascinating piece of hardware. •Jim62sch• 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Me thought it was wetware? Hope that's not Wehrkraftzersetzung. ... dave souza, talk 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we refer to it as wetware. Of course, my specialty is reproducing that wetware in silico (there's a Latin phrase I'm comfortable with), using software. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC
Hi, I removed the mission not accomplished banner at the top of this page per our user-page policy. Please refrain from campaigning for/against polemical issues on Wikipedia :). Thanks! -- lucasbfrtalk 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's one way of starting an edit war over a factual statement that's only arguably a polemic. In a spirit of compromise I've commented out all but the bare facts, this is something that it would be civil to discuss before implementation. It's already been suggested that you can raise your concerns at WP:AN if you don't feel able to discuss this with Jim in a civil way. .. dave souza, talk 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Matter is now being discussed at WP:ANI. JoshuaZ 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This was totally uncivil. I disagree with you Josh (though you weren't the one being uncivil). OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for some kind of forum for free speech. That's not it at all- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Friday(talk) 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? And you are....whom? Are we going to apply your criteria across the board? •Jim62sch• 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I'm a Wikipedia editor, who else would I be? Your message can easily be seen as soapboxing, which we don't really want to encourage. Since it adds no value to the encyclopedia, you should probably remove it. Friday(talk) 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You went from must to should? Do pictures of Peeps add anything to Wiki? No. Do I care that you have them on your page? No. If I put that banner (or even a verbal equivalent) on an article I'd hope you'd remove it and smack me upside the head for being a total ass. But on a user page? Also, no offense, but "can easily be seen" really doesn't mean a heck of a lot from a logical standpoint as it's inference, which is somewhat unreliable (unless we're talking community standards and "I can't describe pornography but I know what it is when I see it"). Obviously, we disagree, and to be honest, I don't really care about the banner. Had lucasbfr not summarily removed it and gave me a cogent argument why he felt it was offensive, I'd've removed it myself. •Jim62sch• 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember ever suggesting that you must remove it. I think you should remove it. It's far from the worst misuse of user space I've seen, but that still doesn't make it a good thing. I can understand how it's annoying to have people messing with your page, except it's not actually your page. But, it's a small issue and I've explained my opinion, so I'll leave it at that. Friday(talk) 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For crying out loud, Jim, will you please stop asking people who they are? Who would you like them to be, Jimbo Wales? Has it struck you that if you don't know someone, it's not necessarily because they're so obscure (Friday is a well-known and respected admin) — but it could be because you're not equally familiar with all parts of the site? That said, if the banner on this page isn't now the way you want it — I have tried in vain to make head or tail of the history — I'll be happy to restore it, if you'll tell me which version you'd like. I think the people who've been removing/rewriting it are in violation of WP:OFFICIOUS. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC).
Can't I even be sarcastic anymore? Sheesh. (I get your point, I get it...but two things on AN/I in one day is a bit much -- BTW, I would've asked Wales the same question in the mood I'm in (yes, bad, smacks own wrist)). And I know Friday is cool now having rec'd a very nice reply from him.
The version I had before Lucasbfr deleted it would be cool. Thanks, Bish ... You and Puppy are the only two who can chill me out. Maybe I'll hire the two of you as my gurus. :) •Jim62sch• 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally dislike the ongoing censorship. Look how much time has been wasted in one editor's jihad against the banner on Jim's page. Maybe lucasbfr should expend this much effort actually improving articles? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think lucasbfr made a bad judgement call in this instance, but in general he's a good, hardworking editor and admin and I'd let it slide. MastCellTalk 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please check if that's the right version, Jim, and I hope you like my new essay. I'm planning to guide WP:OFFICIOUS towards becoming official policy. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, Bish, it's perfect. Now to read your essay. Do you mind if I comment on it?
MastCell, I was going to let it slide anyway, but then it got to ANI...too much fun for one day. :) •Jim62sch• 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL, improve it, it's a wiki! Bishonen | talk 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps Jim62sch should also spend his effort improving articles, instead of putting polemical statements on his user talk page? The argument "go write articles instead" is simply not going to persuade anyone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the all-seeing thought police is thinking of removing the long statement by Sun Myung Moon that forms most of a user page I came across recently? From my viewpoint it's a useful indicator of whence said user is coming, but sure looks like polemic to me. ... dave souza, talk 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
CBM, thank you for your input. I have three FA's to my credit and countless GA's. How are you making out? Funny too that people chose "polemical" to describe the banner given the etymology of polemic. Irony can be so sweet. •Jim62sch• 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I do just fine, thanks. You seem to be avoiding my question of how you think this banner advances the mission of the encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion it performs the same function as other user page statements, and indicates whence Jim cometh, Now as to your endless questioning, you think that advances the mission of the encyclopedia? ... dave souza, talk 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be easy enough to make a calm statement of his beliefs if he wished to do so. Instead he declared his opinion in a style designed to attract attention - little wonder it arrived. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be avoiding my question. .. dave souza, talk 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) I didn't remove the material from the user page, but I can't see any purpose for it being there. I think there is some benefit to the encyclopedia to reduce the amount of this stuff in use space, as it only detracts from our purposes. Unfortunately, that comes down to editors having suitable self restraint in expressing themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
CBM, Jim has a wikibreak notice on his page. He's been templated, which erupted into a huge mess involving lots of drama; and now this. It has been resolved. I think Jim's had enough stress tacked on his plate. Please go find something productive to do; you have repeatedly made your position clear, and continuing to post it is edging into harassment. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunantly, I don't share your thoughts on that comment being harrasment KC, trying to make his position clear probably, but harrassment is a bit of an overjudgement. — Moeε 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I did say "edging into" and Carl has dropped it so I think we're done with this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jim62sch;
Re [18], Image policy is a contentious issue, and intelligent design attracts people with strong opinions and irreconcilable assumptions. Experienced contributors like you can do a lot of good by setting an example of reason and civility. Please be careful to discuss things in a respectful and civil way. Tom HarrisonTalk 12:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see: It's akin to sarcasm, it's called humour with a bite. I'll be nicer when other people stop being clinically stupid. Thanks for your message. Odd though that you protected right after the images were deleted -- even though there was clearlyno edit war in progress.•Jim62sch• 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You might consider that Tom Harrison's comment is the third comment visible on this talk page where someone points out that an edit of yours might have been ill considered. I am perfectly willing to discuss any disagreements we have, but comments that seem to indicate I am "clinically stupid" do nothing to promote dialogue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I was not necessarily referring to you, was I? I was referring to the comments and the apparent mind-set of a certain group of editors who are clearly devoted to removing images for the hell of it and, in my opinion, lessening the value of Wikipedia by not giving a damn about the article itself, but rather about some rather arcane rules that have little or no relation to logic or international law. If you fit in that group, or feel that you fit in that group, then so be it. Had I been specifically referring to you, I would have used your name (although, that would clearly be a direct ad hom, and I tend to avoid those). In addition "being stupid" indicates the state of an action, does it not?
Also, Tom is entitled to his opinion. However, I find it to be rather interesting that he leaves his warning after having protected a page that clearly needed no protection. See, that's a bigger issue. •Jim62sch• 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It's Tom. At least he didn't protect the page on his favoured version mid-edit war, and didn't cite BLP spuriously. Be happy with the improvement in his behaviour. As for scolding you about your behaviour...well, the fact that he habitually abuses his admin tools doesn't mean that he's forbidden to comment on the behaviour of others. But, given the source, feel free to point and laugh. Guettarda 23:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as you've restored two of these images, could you take a look at my ideas in Talk:Intelligent design#Sample 'critical commentary' boxes. As I'm not edit-warring anybody (unlike the image-deletion-warriors, I'm not so quixotic as to think that doing so against the consensus actually achieves anything), it seems I'm flying under everybody's radar at the moment. If we can get these warriors out of our hair in a manner that also improves the article, then I'm all for it. Hrafn42TalkStalk 04:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Good news about the EEC and MS, eh! p.s. you should have mail. .. dave souza, talk 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Darned Euros picking on a friendly American company. LOL. •Jim62sch• 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn, I think I arrived late to the discussions on your idea -- my points had already been covered. Sorry. •Jim62sch• 10:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Never you mind, my lad. To cheer you up, have just found that your National Historic Landmark the Delta Queen was built just up the river from here 81 years ago, and we're now having a whip round to save her![19] .. dave souza, talk 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty cool -- I had stupidly assumed that boats of that type were built in the US. A good day is one in which you learn something; a great day is one in which you both learn something and learn that you need to change your assumptions. It's a great day, thanks. •Jim62sch• 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it surprised me when it came on the news this evening. It's the same shipyard that built the Cutty Sark. .. dave souza, talk 19:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you think:"Well, this is certainly a bit out of control. Filll (or anyone) can format something on any page". I'm sure you will now support my right to edit my talk page as I see fit. That was your point wasn't it?Tstrobaugh 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What did I say above that you don't like? If you think "it really doesn't concern you. It's beginning to look like Wikistalking if you're going around checking/critiquing/finding fault with his innocuous edits" is being Mr. nice guy I'd hate to see you mad at me. And this "to smear someone, which certainly appears to be your intent here" so smearing is wrong? Then why did you say this "Besides, being a tablehead, I'm sorry, member of Mensa,"? Actually the organizations I belong to consider Mensa to be the low IQ group so I'm not even offended if that was your intent. How about this "taking a cheap swipe at someone"? Is that wrong? See my previous reply. "Just some helpful advice " Actually I wouldn't take any advice from someone that talks out of both sides of their mouth, not an ad hominem as I've documented above. If you ever want to have a real discussion without the testosterone let me know, see that's me being nice. But then you didn't really mean it when you said it did you? Try me, I really mean it.Tstrobaugh 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If Mensa is not up to your snuff try Prometheus Society. Let's separte some things. Let's deal with one issue at a time for clarities sake. What rankles you more, my talk page or the IC stuff? Pick one and I'll address it. Tstrobaugh 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What IQ test did you take? The WAIS III has a cieling of 165. You may want to try Mega Society then, way out of my league, although I know quite a few members from the other groups. As for your question "what precisely is it that "they" are not understanding?" Since I am not a "they" I don't see how I could answer that. Perhaps a better place to start (as I've already stated my postion many times and can be easily looked up), what do you understand my position to be? Not that your a "they" or anything.Tstrobaugh 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that you are in Category:Wikipedians_against_censorship, surely you take this position whether you agree with what the person is saying or not. I mean just for logical consistency if not for fairness.Tstrobaugh 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"OK, so is the entire argument covered by the stuff that was moved to your user page? I'll look through it" It is all at Talk:Irreducible_complexity/Archive_04#ID_is_not_Science. As for the IQ, you really can't say what your IQ is if you don't know what test you took, some tests have standard deviations of 15, some 16 and some even 24 and odd numbers like 15.6.Tstrobaugh 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, odd numbers like 15.6. Yes, very odd.--Filll 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes odd in the sense that it's not a whole number like the others, as in strange, not mathematically odd. See Odd if you are having trouble with that. What is your point? Tstrobaugh 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I am just mentally inadequate compared to some here. Oh well.--Filll 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really ans Jim says we all make mistakes, heart matters more than mind. Be truthful and say what is in you heart and you will have understanding. Understanding is the key to communication, not sniping.Tstrobaugh 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Good. Maybe we'll get somewhere. You say:"the judge's comments are germane in that they explain his reasoning in finding ID (and it's component parts) to be creationism." Why would the judges reasoning be important? Why is the ruling important scientifically? I don't think it meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria:"A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". How is the judge "authoritative" in the area of Philosophy of science? Secondly there is a semantic problem with quoting the Judge as a citation for "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[2]" How can the Judge speak for the "scientific community"? Thirdly, as I've repeatedly pointed out, if judges rulings are scientifically valid, then can Scopes Trial be used as a citation in this article? Thanks for your consideration in this matter.Tstrobaugh 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not post this nonsense anywhere. It is just an effort to create a fight. The judge in the Scopes trial did not rule on any scientific issues, did he? The Dover trial judge did summarize the scientific testimony and philosophy of science testimony in his ruling and as such his ruling is a valid tertiary source of what was said by scientists who are authority figures, testifying under oath. So it is an extremely good source. But this is just further tendentious baiting and pointless time-wasting.--Filll 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Do not post this nonsense anywhere. It is just an effort to create a fight." Who's trying to start a fight?Tstrobaugh 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're not willing or able to respond to these specific points I've made perhaps you would be willing to post them back to IC talk patge so that other can answer them. I'm sure you wouldn't want any censorship going on, like how they keep archiving anything I say to get it off the page, even though my first edits where finally accepted (removal of phrase "intelligent design creationism"). I'll admit I'm wrong about all three of the above points as soon as someone can enlighten me.Tstrobaugh 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Judge Jones needed to determine whether teaching ID in public school violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In order to do so, he needed to decide, based on the preponderance of the evidence, whether ID was science or creationism. In reviewing the evidence, and applying the Lemon test, the Endorsement test, and case law from Edwards v. Aguillard, Jones determined that ID was in fact creationism, a finding that the DI chose not to appeal (likely knowing that they would lose). Hence, absent further cases, ID is considered to be creationism for purposes of public education.
Re: The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science: Again, based on the preponderance of the evidence presented in the court, Jones accepted as fact and then summarized some of that evidence in his ruling, evidence that clearly supported the above statement.
In Scopes, Judge Raulston did not rule on the issue of science (in fact he refused to hear much of the scientific evidence as being not germane to the trial), he ruled on whether Tennessee statute had been violated -- which it had been. Hence, as he did not address the issue of science, he was adjudicating in the same manner as would a traffic judge in upholding or dismissing a speeding citation. •Jim62sch• 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> I will note that Scopes was a jury trial and the jury was not able to hear the vast majority of the scientific testimony. I do not know if the judge in Scopes wrote up anything after summarizing the trial. I do not think so, except for a perfunctory report. The Dover trial was not a jury trial, so it was quite different. There was also precedent to go on in the Dover situation, based on several previous important court decisions in the area.--Filll 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a brief request for clarification: You state that I have "indeed been problematic at times".[20] May I ask when and how? Is it just the comments made directly after the block? If there was some other problem, did you ever discuss it with me? E kala mai, my memory is not that great. :-) If I have been truly problematic, I would like to know, so I can try and be better in the future. If you wouldn't mind answering here, as to not split discussion, that would be appreciated. Mahalo nui loa, Jim. --Ali'i 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It was some of the comments: they were just a bit strong, verging on nasty (like I should talk) and seemed out of place -- overall, though, I should have used a word other than problematic -- how about argumentative (a trait that I don't see as being bad)? I'll change the word if you're cool with that. BTW: please keep writing Hawai'ian -- I've never studied it, but from looking into the meaning of Mahalo (I did know what it meant, but not nui loa) I see that Hawai'ian is a very complex, agglutinative language. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
ʻAʻole pilikia. :-) I just wanted to make sure I was trying my best and not actually being problematic. While I'd appreciate a change to "argumentative", it's up to you. I was more concerned with a possible faulty underlying behavior rather than a faulty word on a random page. Again, mahalo. A hui hou. --Ali'i 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to argumentative with a note that it was no biggie because I can be argumentative too. :) You're not problematic, that really was just poor word usage on my part. E kala mai. (I hope that's right)
"ʻAʻole pilikia." -- neat way of saying "no worries" -- I'll need to remember that so I can use it. :) A hui hou. •Jim62sch• 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It was great to meet you in Philly, sorry it was so short. I spent most of the week chasing my own tail. I'm back in the UK with jetlag now. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Time to abandon the article to the ASPOVers. There is little value in arguing with them as they still have a problem with the concepts of neutral and weight and our typically lax admins aren't pulling them up for it. Time to let the admins do some of the ground work. Shot info (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 11:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Clearlightalbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. •Jim62sch• 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
