User talk:Jacob1207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please feel free to leave me a message. I'm always eager to talk with other Wikipedians. Jacob1207 17:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

Jacob, I have recently begun reviving the Supreme Court case project since the founder is inactive. You're welcome to drop on by and help us out if you are interested. There's also a discussion going at the project's talk page. Enjoy your Memorial Day! --Kchase02 (T) 06:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Maryland

I noticed just recently that User:Jeff02 created a Maryland WikiProject, which I just joined. I remember our conversations from a year or so ago regarding your extensive edits to the History of Maryland page and thought you may be interested in participating. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ryan Leaf on SI cover.JPG)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ryan Leaf on SI cover.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

I am afraid I have reverted a lot of your contributions to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, as they don't seem to be available under a free license. Sadly the article is now a stub. Please avoid giving the impression of plagiarism. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang

I note that both of the quotes that you included come from 1992. This time period was very interesting from a historical standpoint in that it was a time when there was a lot of hemming and hawing over the philosophical implications of the Big Bang. In particular, there was some concern that empirical data in 1992 was contradicting parts of the Big Bang. Resolutions to these quandries would be forthcoming, but in the meantime, a lot of other ideas were imposed onto the science.

Burbidge is a Big Bang critic and using him as a source is to give undue weight to the opinions of a Big Bang critic when the paradigm is dominant to the point of ascendancy in science. Likewise, the opinions of the historian of science are ill-considered in light of current understandings of such topics as eternal inflation. Basically the quotes are out-of-date.

There is more I can say about these issues, but as it is the Big Bang article already includes more than its fair share of reporting on religious/philosophical speculation. As such, I thought it best to keep the growing bloat of this content down to a minimum.

I am happy to discuss these issues in greater detail if you want. I know that these explanations are very cursory, but if you would like I will go into much more detail.

Best,

ScienceApologist 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that these proposed additions are not strictly relevant to the topic itself. Burbidge is a Big Bang denier, and as such, his opinion is skewed by that perspective. It is actually an incomplete opinion because the Big Bang does not require an initial cause. Likewise, the quote from the historian of science does not conform to present understandings of the implications of the Big Bang paradigm. Besides, first cause issues are already addressed elsewhere in the article to the extent that they are relevant to the topic. --ScienceApologist 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Burbidge is not a reliable source for the general notions about the Big Bang. Consensus is not that there is a church of the Big Bang. That is a fringe view, and we need to be very careful about the rules for marginalization of such views. Likewise, the comment from the historian of science is highly biased. I don't know where this person gets off claiming that the Big Bang makes the creator "more respectable". It's akin to William Lane Craig's nonsense. In any case, this kind of posturing doesn't belong in the article since we already deal with these issues surrounding first cause implications. --ScienceApologist 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you agree that quite a few notable people are on the record stating that the Big Bang is useful in the cosmological argument? Sure: but the names or comments of all notable persons who believe this is not relevant to the Big Bang article.
Doesn't this have philosophical and religious implications? Yes. Subject to the relative weight of the claim, we adequately address it as currently stands in the article.
Do you agree that this fact should be mentioned in the article? It already is mentioned in the article. Emphasizing it or elaborating on it is placing undue emphasis on this debatable point.
Note that somewhat soon this may all be a moot point because we're talking about forking the philosophical/religious perspective over to its own article. There it can be a dumping ground for whatever philosophical flights-of-fancy other editors desire.
--ScienceApologist 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Hi: I've been doing quite a lot of work on the legality of nuclear weapons on Wikipedia recently, and have come to the conclusion that a good place to start would be on the above article (basically because adding stuff to Nuclear weapon and Trident missile causes a few arguments which waste a lot of time!). I've spent a good deal of time today editing the article, and I wondered - since it was you that started the article in the first place - whether you would like to help out? I'm particularly interested in any information you might haver regarding the application of the ICJ advisory opinion in US law - it has come up a couple of times in courts on this side of the Atlantic. FYI I've already nominated the article at WP:ACID, if you want to vote for it, and have also requested a rating somewhere. Thanks! --Jim (Talk) 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your GA nomination of Owen Gingerich

The article Owen Gingerich you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Owen Gingerich for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. Eubulides 07:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your comments on the NYG histpry peer review. I tried to address some of them. I archived the peer review as I acknowledged it needs significant work and will continue to work on it. My responses are here, if you want to look them over. Feel free to comment more on the article's talk page if you want to give more suggestions. Quadzilla99 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/User_talk%7EJacob1207_25f4.html"