User:Jim62sch/archive8

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Already gave my opinion. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Probability of neo-Darwinian evolution

You commented on my talk page "So?"

"Dealing eleven identical hands in a row wouuld exceed Dembski's Universal probability bound." Obviously probability is not one of your strong points. Jim62sch 23:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In response:

Apparently you have little understanding of the magnitude of the Complex Specified Information involved relative to the size of the universe, the age of the universe and the physical limitations on the rate of the recombination of systems. It further appears that you have taken few if any courses in Physics or Thermodynamics. e.g. See Prof. Granville Sewell's A Second Look at the Second Law

In the real world it is sometimes much harder to say what the laws of probability predict than in a coin-flipping experiment; thus here it may be even harder to define and measure order, but sometimes it is easy. In any case, with 1023 molecules in a mole of anything, we can be confident that the laws of probability at the microscopic level will be obeyed (at least on planets without life) as they apply to all macroscopic phenomena; this is precisely the assumption---the only common thread---behind all applications of the second law. Everything the second law predicts, it predicts with such high probability that it is as reliable as any other law of science---tossing a billion heads in a row is child's play compared to appreciably violating the second law in any application. One critic [Jason Rosenhouse, "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics," The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 , number 4, 3-8, 2001] wrote "His claim that 'natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen' is pure gibberish. Does Sewell invoke supernatural forces to explain the winning numbers in last night's lottery?" But getting the right number on 5 or 6 balls is not extremely improbable, in thermodynamics "extremely improbable" events involve getting the "right number" on 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so balls! If every atom on Earth bought one ticket every second since the big bang (about 10^70 tickets) there is virtually no chance than any would ever win even a 100-ball lottery, much less this one. And since the second law derives its authority from logic alone, and thus cannot be overturned by future discoveries, Sir Arthur Eddington called it the "supreme" law of Nature [The Nature of the Physical World, McMillan, 1929].

DLH (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Russian author Alexey Melkikh critiques evolution in INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLE AND POSSIBLE DETERMINISTIC MECHANISM OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Alexey V. Melkikh, (Ural state technical university, Molecular physics chair,) Entropy 2004, 6, 223–232

It was shown that the probability of new species formation by means of random mutations is negligibly small. . . . The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2×10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2×10^9). . . . Thus, finally we have P = 10^57000000. This figure is vanishingly small. Therefore, a conclusion may be drawn that species could not be formed due to random mutations.

If a molecular machine, which controls the evolution (with reference samples assigned a priori as thermodynamic forces), does not exist, then the Darwin evolution contradicts to the second law, since it represents a macroscopically oriented (from the simple to the complex) fluctuation.

Perhaps you could write a formal rebuttal to Melkikkh for publication in that peer reviewed journal Entropy on how neo-Darwinian evolution or the Origin of Life can be explained by the probability of selecting less than eleven prescribed card hands in a row!DLH (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the learned professor Granville Sewell. Could this be the famous entropy = disorder trick? [1][2] Also seems to be missing the point that natural selection is not random, but then what can we expect. . . . dave souza, talk 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I will note that this seems somewhat confused. The real mathematicians on which Dembski has based his work have reviewed it and stated that Dembski's work is complete nonsense and replete with errors. Also, numerical simulations of evolution seem to work fine; how could that be if they are so flawed and speciation is such an improbable event? In fact, many numerical techniques for solving engineering and applied mathematics problems are quite close to natural selection. If it is such a worthless principle, why is it useful for solving problems? How do you explain Prigogine's Nobel Prize by the way? And all the tens of thousands of professional thermodynamicists who seem to have no problem with the 2nd law and life?--Filll (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I wrote that a year-and-one-half ago -- it took this long to respond?

In any case, both Filll and Dave seem to have nailed the head, or hit the nail on the head or whatever. The idea of natural selection being random (oh, and let's not forget unguided) seems only to afflict the minds of those who assume that the existence of H. sapiens has a meaning, a purpose, and that we are the pinnacle, the ne plus ultra of evolution (or life on earth (and doubtlessly everywere else), if you prefer). Jim62sch^dissera! 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Relativist?

This is getting off-topic for AN/I, but what I said there is not relativism. I said: there's a difference between what I wouldn't do, and what I consider it unacceptable for others to do.

I would never order grapefruit juice with breakfast - it's disgusting to me. I would not support a law that others may not order grapefruit juice with breakfast. There are many social interactions that I would personally avoid, which I don't think it's wrong for others to pursue. There are ways that I would not put arguments, which I still think it's okay for others to articulate. I wouldn't sleep with your wife; I think it's just fine if you do.

If I left Wikipedia, I probably would do so quietly, but that doesn't mean that nobody can leave a statement explaining why they left.

All of that does not make me a "relativist", whatever that's supposed to mean. It means I recognize that tastes differ. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I like grapefruit juice and don't care what others think (about grapefruit). Chacun a son gout. Nonetheless, we're talking apples and grapefruit here --- the analogy just doesn't wash. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of my using several examples of increasing seriousness is that there's a continuum from apples to grapefruits, in this case. The grayer examples are more useful than the grapefruit juice. You seem to be implying, although not saying, that you... do consider it unacceptable to leave a departing statement here that is critical of other Wikipedians. Am I right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's unacceptable -- mostly because it's tacky. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, there's a fairly long stretch from tacky to unacceptable, but chacun a son gout. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my wife was offended by your statement -- yes, she reads over my shoulder. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell her I'm gay.... or else female, and not gay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Warton reference

Hi

I was looking at the Thomas Warton article, and at the bottom there's a web address in the Notes section namely ^ http://caxton.stockton.edu/pom/stories/storyReader$8 , which doesn't seem to find anything. Looking at the history it seems that you put it there in February 2006, so I wondered if you could shed any light on this. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know it worked in 2006, but it seems to have become a bad link. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

I would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Human evolution. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no tolerance for abject ignorance, stupidity, hatred, fanaticism or other related bosh, nonsence, drivel, piffle, garbage, effluvium, et cetera. Period. Ethics have more value than supposed "civility".

SI: thanks, dude. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

rrl

I noticed you've done some serial red link removal. At least one case didn't seem to be called for. Please make sure your edits are in agreement with WP:REDLINK. —EncMstr 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm as serial red-link killer. What was the link I removed that you are questioning? Likely it was a mistake (which you would have been wise to assume to be the case.) Cheers. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It was this one. I'd like to think it was a mistake, but rather difficult to see how. We will get around to writing the article, eventually. —EncMstr 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Then write the damned article, don't leave red-links all about the place. Seriously, if you're going to link something, at least make a damned stub. "We'll get a round tuit eventually" is simply sloppy scholarship in my opinion.

Also, next time you feel I did something wrong see WP:DICK and WP:AGF before coppping a 'tude. Dig, dude? Jim62sch^dissera! 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I was uncivil, but if I came across that way, I apologize.

I take it you didn't read Wikipedia:Red link? Or maybe you don't agree with it? Quoting:

In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article.

There seems to be no time limit to a red link, though there are several reasons for removing them. As far as creating a stub, there are entities (bots and people) who delete them. That's happened to enough of the stubs I have created that I don't do it unless it will be a reasonably complete stub in the first edit. Thoughts? —EncMstr 06:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree with it, but it's my nature not to agree with what I see as sloppiness (not on your part, mind you, but on the part of WP) in scholarship.

Of course, you do raise an interesting point: if the stubs are deleted willy-nilly, then my argument is baseless in a certain sense, and yet points to a very real problem. Perhaps we should raise this issue somehow? I think we both want what's best for Wikipedia, so maybe some clarification of the somewhat subjective "plausibly sustain" might be needed.

I too apologise if I've been snarky or uncivil, but I just had to get six stitches in my right hand due to my own clumsiness, so I'm just a tad irritable. But as Dr. Buddy Rydell noted, goosefrabaaaahhhhh. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 07:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Six stitches?! Yikes! As Arnold might say, "You need a vacation." Take the day off, kick back—and veg. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. —EncMstr 07:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jim62sch

Hi Jim62sch, I came across this RfA, which you declined. Would you like to have it deleted? Declined RfAs are normally deleted to avoid the impression that the candidate had an unsucessful RfA, and if you did run for adminship at a later date, creating a new RfA page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jim62sch 2 would look like you've had a first RfA that was unsuccessful RfA when in reality you hadn't actually run. It's up to you, of course, but I'll delete it if you like. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete. Thanks and cheers. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. :) If you ever want it restored, feel free to let me or another admin know. Best wishes. Acalamari 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Clever nick you've got. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Acalamari 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking for edit warring

As I keep pointing out, I am not advocating any change in policy here, and my actions are in line with the current blocking policy. If you disagree with that assertion, I invite you to ask at ANI or some other policy discussion forum.

If you don't wish to avail yourself of any of the dispute resolution forums available for Template:Dominionism, there's little I can do to help. The point of my intervention was only to stop the edit warring, not to mediate the dispute. I had the explicit goal of treating all parties involved in the edit war equally. Indeed, if I only warned one side of the dispute, I wouldn't be acting impartially. It takes two sides to make an edit war, and often both sides feel they are acting in the best interest of the project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose we could move the entire mess to AN/I, but I wonder if you'd address my two issues raised on WP:AN there? If you are really interested in proving that 0RR does not violate policy (as several of us believe it does) why not post your reasons there? You've referenced two sections, WP:EW and WP:BLOCK#Disruption and yet nothing I can see, supports your interpretation. If I recall correctly, Dave Souza raised this point to you as well.

As for the rest, I'm sure you saw my comments on Guettarda's page -- it seems to me that you're dancing about the issue. Jim62sch 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding on WP:AN. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd A propos comments on ElinorD's talk page

Hi Jim. I noticed your comment on ElinorD's talk page (diff). With regards to commenting that, "the rest of Elinor's arguments are like so much effluvium wending its way to the cloacae", saying that someone's arguments are shit is not appropriate, no matter how you phrase it, no matter how many obscure of terms you use. Of course, you and I and everyone may certainly disagree with others' arguments, but it more civil and appropriate to say something like, "I disagree with your arguments", or even, "I strongly disagree with your arguments". There is no need to say what you said. I ask that you please reconsider your comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to get to the matter at hand without pussyfooting around. I don't disagree with her arguments, I think they are as bogus as the "Twinkie defense" -- yes, that one fooled a lot of folks too. In other words, her arguments are coprotic.

Look, I understand your concerns, but I think if we were all just a bit more blunt and honest we might get to the point much more quickly. Cheers. Jim62sch 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm in agreement with Jim here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I am being oblique here, but then why did you not simply say, "Your argument is shit". What you said: "effluvium wending its way to the cloacae" means exactly that. Why say that, which seems to me to be exactly the opposite of being blunt? I had to look up the definitions of those two words, and I am sure others will too. --Iamunknown 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! A new day, two new words learned. That's why I phrased it the way I did -- teaching is fun. Any luck with coprotic? BTW, effluvium covers any detritus, not just fecal matter. Jim62sch 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume detritus refers to other types of human waste, no? As for coprotic, no luck. No dictionary hits, nine Google hits ... it must be obscure. --Iamunknown 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very obscure...in fact it's likely that it's a neologism made up by some crazy Wikipedia editor who also happens to be a linguist and knows classical Greek. :) Being a linguist is fun precisely because you can make up words that are semantically and orthographically correct.

Look at this article Encopresis and it'll become clear. :) – Jim said that ;)

This is fun! Me thought of coprolite, us old fossils eh! Now why the plural of cloaca, and were you thinking of civil engineering or anatomy? .. dave souza, talk 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Oooh, and William Gilbert's "electric effluvia"! Dunno how you get that down a sewer. By the way, my favourite quote from Shakespeare is "enter a sewer, with hautboys" from Macbeth, iirc... dave souza, talk 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep Macbeth. Cloaca just means one sewer, and Wikipedia is big enough to afford two. :) Jim62sch 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:São Bernardo do Campo#"Pavlistarvm Terra Mater"

Talk:São Bernardo do Campo#"Pavlistarvm Terra Mater" & São Bernardo do Campo |motto = Pavlistarvm Terra Mater
(Mother Land of the Paulists) Your comments and observations please. Peter Horn 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I left an additional comment on the afore mentioned talk page. Peter Horn 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Jim62sch. henrik•talk 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid escalating the dispute

Per this arbitration enforcement, and as discussed at this ANI thread, and at this arbitration enforcement thread, I am asking you to avoid making edits like this and this. You indicated that you will accept the compromise over Videmus Omnia's user page. Please let's not escalate or reopen this dispute any further. I have asked Videmus Omnia to direct grievances to the arbitration committee, and I am asking you to do the same if you have any further concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something, but so is my wife: neither of us can see any violation here. ~~Weird that VO can be an obnoxious prick, but I can't defend my honour~~. Weird that VO can post a bullying attack page in clear violation of WP:CIVIL, but I can't defend my honour. Weird, really weied. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As you will recall, I am the arbitrator who wrote the decision in your case. You are specifically and definitively instructed not to make any further reference on-wiki to Videmus Omnia's real-life activities or any disparaging reference to this (former) user. Issues concerning this user's departure message can be resolved without resort to these tactics. Any concern you may have with this instruction should be referred directly to the Arbitration Committee.Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Galicia

Ola, grazas pola mensaxe, non sei se entendín ben, na páxina de Stoni eu só mencionei o artigo sobre Abadín, Lugo, do que fixen unha versión moi simple a partir do artigo galego , o meu inglés non me permite facer unha tradución completa, se ti queres facer unha tradución do artigo ou de calquera outro por min encantado. Aínda que a Wikipedia en galego ten relativamente poucos artigos e queda moito por facer, pouco a pouco penso que imos mellorando na súa calidade, claro que iso o teñen que dicir o que nos visitan, saúdos dende Galicia.--Rocastelo 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

They're in, then out, then they shake it all about

They do the hocky pocky then they ignore NPOV, that's what Wikipedia's all about :-) Shot info (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, now I won't get that song out of my head. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh! :) Jim62sch^dissera! 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:-) Shot info (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume you were trying to accomplish something besides being a m:Dick. Dont template the regulars; if you wish to discuss something with another editor, try a little civility next time. It will go so much farther.

All that said, care to actually post a dif to the edit to which you are referring? Without context, I fail to see how Jim can address this.

Btw Jim, if you decide to delete this as trolling, don't mind my little post - my feelings won't be hurt in the least. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is hard, nay impossible, to defend oneself against such serious charges without even seeing the evidence. Admittedly, this was no problem when facing the Volksgericht, but I had thought much more highly of Wikipedia, especially one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work. Although, now that I've mentioned it, I wonder if these serious and hurtful charges could be related to image work. After all, it is apparent that Quadell has at least temporarily been stopped from proceding with his image deletion spree, and I know that I played some small rôle in that unfortunate event. Ah, but I'm not one to assign motioves and I'm sure this is mere coincidence.

As for Quadell being a troll, well, such thoughts about one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work are simply heretical. There's just simply no way that such a well-respected and idolised administrator could be guilty of such a heinous crime, one that that nearly borders on admin abuse. Ah, but who am I to say, decisions of that sort come from arbcom, not some lowly editor with only 16K edits and 3 FA's.

In any case, I'm sure Quadell will clear up this issue, and provide the much sought after evidence presently. Certainly, at least, within the next 48 hours. I humbly await the presentation of such evidence, and if it isn't forthcoming, well...I'm afraid I'll need to assume that the Puppy has correctly called a spade a spade. Very sad, very sad indeed when one cannot trust one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work, who is a good egg to boot. Jim62sch 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick note: the 48 hours is not a deadline during which I "expect" Quadell to respond -- his choice to respond or not is solely his alone -- it is, as I noted, rather the time after which I shall have to sadly assume that the Puppy was right. Jim62sch 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have this page on my watchlist, so I might not see questions here promptly. Jim, you refer to "serious" and "hurtful charges", but I only ask for you to be more civil in your interactions with others. It's really nothing personal. You're not on trial, and no one is dredging up "evidence" against you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The point remains: I want to see diffs. You cannot accuse someone of incivility, and then just run away without providing some sort of evidence; a fact that both KC and Guettarda have pointed out to you here or on your user page. In addition, your tag, absent any diffs, is uncivil, trollish and very much vandalism in the sense that spraying "Bush is a dick" on the White House walls would be.

The template you chose also mentions "personal attacks", that too needs to be proved. The job of an admin is not to post drive by warnings and escalate, well, escalate some issue of which I'm not even aware. I really don't like to put it this way, but my patience with you is wearing thin.

BTW, I wasn't any too fond of your off-handed dismissal of Guettarda's concerns either. Jim62sch 22:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOR Request for arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

Much sound and fury about nothing? LOL. I see no reason to change PSTS no matter how loudly you scream. Jim62sch 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation Request (la->English)

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

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

Here ya go, Lazuli,:

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

witty riposte?

In case you did not see it, Jim, I left you this earlier: [3] Hope you see and enjoy it, cheers :-) Peter morrell 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No funny

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

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

I think you're not alone Filll. See [4]. Jossi, edit away: As of Thursday, I'd given up on homeopathy other than to drop by and look at the chaos from time to time. Enjoy the page. Jim62sch^dissera! 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation

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

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

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

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

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

DAMN YOU!

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your thoughts (and spirit of cooporation), as I mentioned on Dave's talk page I've been doing a lot of yapping so I'm going to listen a while as everyone chime in before I add any more to the conversation. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

R&I Talk page

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

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In case you missed it

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

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

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

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

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

Cla an admin?

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

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

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

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

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

OTOH, [5] -- not good behaviour. Gopherwood or hemp? Jim62sch^dissera! 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on RfArb

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

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

You're tellin me *laughs* If you ever want to see a complete breakdown, or two of em, check out the mantanmoreland and Troubles ArbComs.. ugh! Anyway, have a good day. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Official warning

Here's your official warning. Stop the personal attacks. Consider this a final warning - if you feel you need secondary and tertiary warnings, that's your opinion. My opinion is that you've exhausted your privileges. Tan | 39 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal? No, linguistic, linguistic, linguistic. Sobriquet is not a foreign word any longer nor is regal, and as I have shown neither are 50% of the words we use daily. That's the beauty ofEnglish: it borrows and takes those borrowings as its own.

BTW Tan, given your involvement in the JtP article, you're hardly in the position to issue threats or blocks. Several of us are raising the same points, albeit in different ways. Sobriquet fits -- or are we to assume that WP is not here for educational purposes, and that most of our readers are idiots without recourse to a lexicon? Jim62sch^dissera! 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

TP count : 18 Joe the Plumber 03:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Jim62sch^dissera! 03:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Y'all plumb loco? Didn't see any personal attacks myself, diffs would be required. More to the point, sobriquet is silly, or at least outside my vocabulary, and has no evident meaning other than nickname. There might be a better word, meme flits through my mind. Something to ponder. . dave souza, talk 10:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sí, soy muy loco. :) I like sonriquet better (it has a slightly different meaning than an ekename), although the more often I type it the more I think of charcoal briquette.

I always thought that a soubriquet was an operatic foil for the ingenue? MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I always forget to read the libretto, but I always hpe the lead isn't a castrato. ;) Next I'll think sobriquet looks like filet. Hmmm, I could go for good filet mignon. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guadalcanal

I just noticed your helpful edits [7] to the Guadalcanal Campaign article. I appreciate that. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Noooo...

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

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

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

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

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

Noah's Ark FAR

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

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

Reversions

Hi Jim. When you make reversions like this one to good faith edits, could you try to explain your reasons in the edit summary? I was trying to make the lead of Physics a little less wordy so it would read better, but if I cut something you think is important, maybe we can find a compromise. I don't want to let our past disagreements over the creation-evolution articles spill over to unrelated areas. Gnixon 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that I had explained, but I see that I didn't. I know your edits were in good faith, and I did try to incorporate some of them into the change. I felt that the shift from Physics to Physicists was a bit abrupt. Also, I didn't see a reason to take physike out of the lead as it adds a sense of history.

BTW, I agree with you regarding the lead picture: surely we can do much better than that. A picture of orbitals is just a bit esoteric for a lead.

Don't worry about the creation-evolution stuff, each article is a different one and we are free to disagree on some things and agree on others. Peace. Jim62sch 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you did a good job rephrasing in a way that avoids switching to "physicists." What's the significance of "physike"? It seems a little arcane to me for the lead, but maybe I'm unfamiliar with the history. If nothing else, it's a little awkward that it could be read as saying that people still use "physike." I'd still like to work on rephrasing things to be as concise as possible. Gnixon 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have, in the past, assumed a lot of good faith with Gnixon, but there are times when he appears to exhibit a lot of ownership of articles. Do what you think is right when you need. Orangemarlin 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence for physike as it was used in the past. Maybe it's better now, maybe not. Jim62sch 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it at least explains the point better to me, but now it's so long that it's distracting. I never liked parenthetical remarks---too easy to succumb to the temptation to bloat. It's a delicate issue to balance information with readability in the lead. Maybe we should fish for ideas on Talk:Physics. My other recommendation for the lead would be to take an active voice in the 2nd sentence (instead of "are studied", "are analyzed") and try to trim down the wording a little. Maybe I'll take another shot at it tomorrow, and hopefully I'll dig up some more lead image candidates, too. Gnixon 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit long, I think I'll just take it out. I'm not fond of parenthetical statements either, although at times they are necessary, I'm just not too sure that this is one of those times.

The active vs. passive argument has always irritated me: all IE languages descended from forms that had not just the active and passive, but also a middle voice that still exists in the form of the reflexive. The general preference for active voice is driven by the difficulty many people have in understanding the passive, and, of late, a belief spawned by the usage of passive by politicians that passive is somehow less accurate. Both to me are fallacious arguments as one can easily learn the passive and the active is just as prone to misstatement of fact as is the passive.

Case in point: the IRS recently changed "A refund check will be sent to you" to "We will send you a refund check". The problem? The IRS does not send the checks, a separate agency, the Financial Management Service sends the checks. Jim62sch 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha. The IRS is retarded. The argument I've always heard for the active voice is simply that it reads better, presumably because it stays concise by saving on prepositional phrases and the like: "John threw the ball" instead of "The ball was thrown by John." My last writing class was centuries ago, but for whatever reason, the things I write seem to get better when I go back and revise to take the active voice---particularly for persuasive writing, but for other forms as well. Anyway, no big deal; just a matter of taste, I suppose. Gnixon 21:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Active or passive, shouldn't it be something like "A refund check may be sent to you"? :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's actually will: it's on a notice indicating that the refund amount may be more or less than anticipated.

Active is quite appropriate in conversational English. However, in written English it allows one to place the stress on particular subjects or objects, and thus allows for much more creativity. But, as you say, chacun a son goût. ;)

Pseudoscience

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

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

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