User talk:JimWae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi -- This is my talk page -- Leave Messages below

  • If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
  • If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.
  • If appropriate, I will move talk from here to relevant article talk page, so that everyone can share in the discussion.


Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Defender of Wikipedia

For outstanding efforts in defending Wikipedia from vandalism, in particular the JFK article, I award you the Defender of Wiki Barnstar -Husnock
For outstanding efforts in defending Wikipedia from vandalism, in particular the JFK article, I award you the Defender of Wiki Barnstar -Husnock

--Hey, thank you very much, Husnock. I have now noticed vandalism on several articles that seems to be part of a class assignment gone astray --JimWae 19:39, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

[edit] history articles on wikipedia?

Hello Jim, I'm an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including the writing of history on Wikipedia. We'd like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu


Sounds interesting - I am going to be very busy the next month - and cannot plan exact times to chat - so let's start with e-mails --JimWae 18:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Hi Jim, if you're more available now, I'm still very interested in speaking with you about your work on Wikipedia. Feel free to drop me an email at jfragasz_at_gmu_dot_edu. - Joan, 8/22/05


[edit] re: history articles on Wikipedia

Hi Jim, if you'd like to email me when you have some time I'm still very interested in speaking with you. Thanks, Joan Fragaszy. jfragasz at gmu dot edu


[edit] Dual nationalities/citizenships

Why are you both a citizen of the U.S. and Canada? Make up your mind and pick one. After that, owe allegiance to only ONE "country."

Many people, like me, in the U.S. do not like people like you with dual nationalities! YOU CAN NOT OWE ALLEGIANCE TO MORE THAN ONE "COUNTRY"!!! PICK ONE AND STAY WITH IT, OR LEAVE!!! -- Unsigned comment by anon IP June 2005 Special:Contributions/4.226.240.86

- Why would I care what people like you like? Why would I bother explaining anything to an anon Dallas IP with no other edits? Are you perhaps projecting your difficulty reconciling your allegiance to the USA with your allegiance to the Confederacy? --JimWae 05:38, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

While I have no problem with a person having dual citizenship, I do understand why many people do. Many of these people are nationalists, and I am sympathetic to their view of things as well. But to accuse a nationalist of being a confederate, thereby implying nationalists are racist, hateful, and nazi-like is completely INTOLERANT of you JimWae. Of course, there is a spectrum of views within nationalism itself, I am sure; a right-wing (nazi-like) and a left-wing. I assure you that mosts American nationalists are simply proud of their country and want to protect it from people who abuse it. This group of people is far from being racist. (Gaytan 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
  • If you want me to take you seriously, you will please refrain from trying to create mountains where there is not even a molehill. Nowhere did I ACCUSE the offensive anon IP of anything, though, of course, my QUESTION does raise the possibility of his being conflicted about his own allegiances. (Incidentally, given other editing events around that time, I had some reason to believe there were indeed some neo-Confederate attitides involved too.) Your attempt to make this an issue of racism is either completely incoherent or ignorant of you. Do you subscribe to the view that all neo-Cons are racist nazis? It appears to me that you just wanted a punching bag & chose me because you are having problems dealing with the other articles which we are already both editing--JimWae 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, just wanted to let you know that I too have lived in two English speaking countries in North America and have ancestors in Europe. I recently learned that I could regain citizenship in the other English speaking country for just $100. I think it might have something to do with the right to return to the country of your birth. You might want to check out human rights. --Jbergquist 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Two Citizenships

If there was a war between the two countries you are citizen of, which side would you take?

Whichever side was in the right, of course - just as I would were I a citizen of just one country--JimWae 04:25, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

  • You, without realizing it, gave a textbook example of disloyalty. FOr example, a loyal person will always support a friend over a stranger no matter what. What you are saying is that loyalty is not important.
    • Old, old discredited example. 2500 years out of date, at least. Plato, The Republic: if a friend gives you a weapon for safe keeping, is it right to return it to him if he is out of mind, even though he insists on its return. We need more and more multi citizenships. They promote business, globalization, poverty awareness, free trade, peace, and the environment. (There. I think I managed to offend everyone from Naomi Klein to Rush Limbaugh.) Vincent 13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Which country do you root for at the Olympics? Probably depends on the athlete? I do not know what countries you are citizen of, but if you ever cheered for the Canadian team you are a traitor to the other, because you cheering against the US, or whatever country.

I have 2 friends... If I ever found it important to renounce my citizenship in either country, I would do so. So far, there is no reason to do so.--JimWae 23:18, 2005 August 6 (UTC)


[edit] Nice work

Just wanted to say thanks for your great contributions to stuff like Missouri secession and Confederate States of America. Much appreciated. jengod 21:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Administrator

How can you tell whether a random Wikipedian is an administrator?? Georgia guy 23:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] King's "plagurism"

All I see is character assassination based on claimed inadequate referencing by a student according to standards apparently neither taught to King nor demanded of his acedemic work. King wanted a doctorate. The proffessors wanted a paying student. Neither were trying to turn King into some kind of expert in documentation creation. They helped educate a man who has had a positive influence on America greater than all the nobodies critisizing his referencing style all put together. 4.250.138.208 07:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not character assassination - all involved agree that King lifted whole sections from another paper. It is not character assassination to uphold standards. The article states that King "might" have believed it was OK, but that does not make it OK. The world is not filled only with angels & beasts. It gave me no pleasure to work on that article --JimWae 07:55, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

The effect is character assassination. Discrediting an important figure is a known propaganda technique. People remember things without remembering where they got them. King wrote as taught and rewarded (by grades). Redefining "standards" different than that applied by the teacher who gave and graded the "assignment" after the man is dead and can't defend himself is pathetic manipulation of public opinion by known and documented propaganda techniques. Even the chief of the FBI engaged in character assisination against King and you are going to argue no one took up the cause of battling the King legacy or that this isn't exactly the sort of smear campaign one would expect? Don't be naive. 4.250.168.91 07:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. - authorship issues



[edit] Lincoln

User:JimWae - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. - Ted Wilkes 20:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities in United States

Jim, please consider responding to my points about your retaining of the list of cities, with their populations and regional locations. I wonder why a list of all 50 states—perhaps including their populations and regional locations—is not more important. (Consitutionally it would be ...). Tony 05:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought you thought it was me. I just fixed the one that was there and expressed my thoughts on keeping it - knowing someone had suggested o/w. I do not think lists make articles long - paragraphs do. There is already a list of states - in a template--JimWae 06:13, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Sure, but length is less important than evenness of detail, in my view. That's one of the benefits of W's system of daughter articles. Tony 07:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vegas & New Orleans do not even appear in the article. Philly would appear only in a non-tabular mind-numbing listing of seaports. Grand Canyon appears only as a link. Chicago would appear only because of its airport. Not all the global cities have been listed yet either. Btw, I did not put the list back in - as far as I can tell it was never removed --JimWae 08:16, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

I do not see anyone else commenting agreement that the list needs to be removed --JimWae 18:22, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

[edit] Units of measure

Thanks for what you did to Litre. If you look at my user contributions you will see that I have been trying to ensure that unit articles are consistent and clear. I would welcome your thoughts. Take a look at Talk:Metre for an ongoing discussion. Bobblewik 18:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Two Three comments - I think the reference to hours, minutes, and days as other "accepted units" makes it clearer just how well accepted they are. I also think it would be helpful to note which derived units are used often (mL & perhaps kL being about it, with dL being used in some engineering). Lastly, though it is only a multiple x 1, it can be helpful to show (& highlight) where in the table the base unit (Litre) fits.--JimWae 20:40, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
Jim, are you distinguishing between North American spelling (liter) and the spelling used elsewhere (litre)? Tony 04:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I agree with you that it could say that litre is in the same category as hour. This would add value. However, I think that belongs lower down e.g. after the definition. A lot of these unit articles were getting too detailed too early. I wanted to simplify them and make them consistent for the reader that just wants to know something simple. Perhaps there should be an explicit section within the accepted units stating which of the three types of accepted unit it is.
As far as 'used often' is concerned, I am not sure how we would define or measure that. This may have been the reason why there was no consistent number of articles about prefixed multiples. The attempt to look official and comprehensive by individual articles was incompatible with the lack of editor motivation to go beyond multiples 'used often'. The solution could be to mention the multiples that are common, somewhere within the main article, as I think you suggest.
Highlighting the unit within the table of prefixes is a good idea. The table could be revised to be more compact.
To Tony, I am not sure what you mean. I do not know the history of things. The BIPM does not mandate spelling, but I understand that Wikipedia SI articles use the spelling that happens to be used in the BIPM SI brochure. The American spelling is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. I think most Wikipedia articles mention spelling variants very early in the article. Did you overlook that sentence?
In summary, I made these edits of several different units to demonstrate an approach. I am sure it is an improvement and I am sure that it can be improved further in a variety of ways. Bobblewik 11:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Numbers

Under ten is universal for newspapers, but for books and magazines it's under one hundred. Babajobu 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "redundancy" in agnosticism

Sorry about the erronous "redundancy removal" I did: I was a bit tense at that time... However, you do agree that the version I put back[1] is better, don't you? Jules LT 07:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I did not exactly compare, but ... no problemo --JimWae 00:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long

An excellent solution! Thanks for that. Bobblewik 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could help --JimWae 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dueling edits - JFK

I think our edits got in the way of each other on the John F. Kennedy article. I was reverting an inappropriate edit by an anonymous user. You might double-check your recent edits that I might have accidentally reverted. (Strange it didn't give me a conflict warning.) -- Kbh3rd 21:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting edits - Franklin D. Roosevelt

You reverted my edits for no apparent reason, restoring several errors. I'll chalk this up to an innocent error on your part, as it looks you are editing the entire page instead of just the section you are working on. Furthermore, the use of the word "democrat" was preserved in the text, but moved outside the parenthetical remark, which disrupted the text flow. I've removed it since it seemed to bother you, but feel free to add it back in wherever you want. --Viriditas 09:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It was my intention to restore all your edits. I had just spent about 10 minutes finding all those links to solitary years and had to make a choice. Have you noticed I did restore several of your edits, and left a note in edit summary about difficulty with your moving democrat so that it modified California instead of the governor? I think only thus/and is left --JimWae 09:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, is there something wrong with just editing section by section? By editing the entire page, you are wiping out the work of other editors. Perhaps this could all be be avoided by using the "in use" tag. --Viriditas 09:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm adding the tag now. Please remove it whenever you are finished. --Viriditas 09:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - I've not seen how to use that tag yet - neither did I expect to get a cramp in my hand from deleting all the [ [ ] ]s - some of which you put back in, btw. Are we clear now? --JimWae 09:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm about to log off anyway. If you want to use variations (time, date) of the tag in the future to prevent this from happening, see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance. Good night. --Viriditas 09:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Arnold

Thanks for the NPOV edit for Benedict Arnold. I'd reverted the "British hero" edit w/o looking farther back to see that there was much better wording than the equally POV, in retrospect, "American traitor". I got a nastygram on my talk page from the presumed anglophile I'd reverted instructing me not to change it again. So we'll see how long your edit lasts. ;-) Kbh3rd 05:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barabbas

Hello, Jim. I want to get Barabbas through peer review in preparation to submit this fascinating artcile for Featrured Article status. As you started the article, I though of letting you know. More on Talk:Barabbas. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] solitary years

I saw your edit comment on American Civil War and followed the link to MoS. The reference to solitary years is inconclusive. The article starts by showing examples of solitary year references as links. Then, in the context of date-reformatting preferences, says reformatting does not work when the year is alone and that generally it isn't used. If there was meant to be a prohibition on the practice, they would have written that page rather differently. I followed their example link to 1974 and found it an interesting page, so see no harm when authors wish to point to year articles for context. Saying that July 1, 1863, warrants a year link and that 1864 does not is logically inconsistent anyway. Hal Jespersen 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying that indiscriminant linking is bad, a sentiment to which I can relate. (I wonder why you thought 1861-1865 in the ACW article weren't relevant. I would assert that anything in the range of, say, 1858 to 1870 would be relevant in an article about the war.) I will take this under advisement. However, I also believe in visual consistency. If there are, say, 4 dates linked in a paragraph or section, I will link the fifth regardless of strong relevancy. (This is similar to the reason why I will link the same year multiple times when it appears joined with day/month combinations.) Hal Jespersen


[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

Examination of public videos reveals evidence of substantially different facts. Consider the contents of this video:* New Video Documentary of WTC Collapse As you watch, note particularly the differences in fact between this video and the wikipedia article, that are verifiable by you by reviewing the sources yourself (ie renting, buying or downloading). We are being lied to. Maybe we want to believe the lies because the truth implies intent from within. -unsigned by anon IP


[edit] Gospels in Jesus article

Hey, JimWae,

I am disappointed by your removal of my capitalization for Gospels in the Jesus article. I see your reasoning but it does not apply in the case of the Gospels. It is standard capitalization that the 4 Gospels are capped, even when saying "Gospels" in general, and when the word is lowercase it means "the Christian message." This is not just a Christian quirk. It is the standard academic capitalization of the word. Please revert asap. And in the future, please do not be so quick to apply the revert button before investigating. 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus revert

Jim, did you revert me intentionally? Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not at all - that was a good edit - server is hiccupping a lot currently--JimWae 04:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barabbas

Why did you revert my edits to Jesus claiming that Barabbas is not in the New Testament? He most certainly is, and that page lays it all out. I can see why it may be considered minor in that article, but somehow the flow of that section is not working, and I attempted to correct it. You are welcome to do so instead of just reverting a troubled section. Thank you. JG of Borg 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Which of us is supposed to have claimed Barabbas is not in the NT? What is there says there is no mention OUTSIDE of the NT of any custom of letting the crowd choose a prisoner to free. This story in the NT cannot be left at face value - some comment is needed for there is no historical basis (when there could have been), it is quite contradictory, and is the basis for centuries of anti-Semitism. There ARE historical records indicating Pilate was the opposite of merciful - and he would have been in trouble with Rome for freeing EITHER man. Letting crowds proclaim you to be the king is not something even peaceful men could get away with - and Jesus had just created a bit of a riot in the Temple & some of his men had used swords to attack arresting soldiers.
  • I reverted because you said there was an EXCHANGE - which the bible does not have but is an interesting idea. Perhaps Pilate did offer to free Jesus IF they would turn in Barabbas. After I changed it after several server hiccups, I did note that you had taken out "exchange", but I still left my version because I also think, though it still needs work, mine was far less convoluted syntax & easier to read, plus you omitted there being no record of such a custom.--JimWae 08:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see you just reverted back. That syntax is far more tortured than mine - AND you say Pilate "attempted to avoid this obligation" - which is YOUR interpretation & is not in the Bible NOR ANY source --JimWae 08:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Btw, if you look at the edit history of Barabbas you just might see a name like mine there --JimWae 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of rewriting. I like your current revision, though it's still a bit wordy. The obligation you speak of wasn't in the Bible nor any other source I'd ever seen. Why does a sentence that has nothing else do to with anything else there (than to attack the source) in that paragraph in the first place? Again, good revision now... but before you had absolutely no transition and obvious POV-ing, which, as you know, is very bad writing. JG of Borg 17:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad such an expert is working on the paragraph. I hope it gets better. JG of Borg 17:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, quick question - there're two sentences in there that seem to not work:
According to the gospels, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate judged Jesus was not guilty of any civil charge.
and
Though there is no record outside the gospels of any such custom, and, as the representative of Rome, Pilate had a duty to punish all crimes against Caesar
which begs the question - if he didn't think Jesus was guilty, why was he obligated to punish a him for a crime he didn't think he committed? Since you are the expert (and introduced this concept), I'll let you clarify it. JG of Borg 17:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Award for diligent editing

For diligently editing articles to ensure they remain accurate, well written and encyclopedic, in particular the Jesus article, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. RossNixon 10:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
For diligently editing articles to ensure they remain accurate, well written and encyclopedic, in particular the Jesus article, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. RossNixon 10:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You might be interested in this

Talk:Jesus#VOTE: BC/AD vs BCE/CE Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deism & the presidents

[edit] Can you please verify that Washington abandoned his prayer book?

- unsigned by JJStroker

Please get back to me on my talk page. Thanks.

[edit] Lincoln speech

First off most of Lincolns speeches were written by others. That doesn't mean it's not relective of him, because he did indeed use the speeches clearly showing that he agreed with what it said. If you dont agree you are basically saying the president of the US is bossed around by his speech writers. If I applied your logic almost every single US presidents speeches would have to be blocked. As for Washington, can you please verify that he abandoned his prayer book? If you dont provide facts I am going to have to report you for vandalism. Please get back to me to clear up this matter. - unsigned by JJStroker

JJStroker is misinformed. One of Lincoln's most admirable characteristics is that he wrote his own eloquent speeches.Lestrade 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Washingtons stated as a escopalian.

It can't be proven he was a deist. He was officially a member of the escopalian church. If you feel that he may have been deist include it in the body of the article. Please do not post it as a fact. You are blurring the line between your personal view and fact which deserves a ban. Please use wikipedia for facts only. Please do not engage in an edit war because I will just keep undoing everything you did unless you can prove to me that your edits are correct with substaintial evidence. Please come to me first to discuss it or I will have to report you. I do not mind putting Washington as a deist if it can be proven. But as of now it simply can not be so it shouldnt be stated as a fact. Also can you please verify that he abandoned his prayer book? Thank you,

JJstroker

[edit] Replies to Stroker (It seems all the above are by him)

If this person took the time to look for the entire proclamation, he would see very clearly that it was NOT a speech at all - it was a written proclamation - as it states at the end that AL has put his hand to it. Congress (see first paragraph of proclamation) had passed a resolution that the president issue a proclamation (imagine that happening today?). Lincoln had the option of vetoing the resolution or signing it. Vetoing it would just lead to harsh debate. What was not written by Congress in the proclamation was written by Seward.

  • As such, it is neither a quote nor in any way representative of Lincoln.
  • Stroker seems to think that I am required to report to him & make sure he agrees with what has been in the article for months before I return it to its NPOV place.
  • Then he tells me not to engage in an revert war because he will revert everything himself
  • Stroker also seems to think that if he disagrees with anything in wikipedia, he can insist on proof to the standard of proof approaching 2+2=4. There is plenty of EVIDENCE that both Lincoln & Washington were deists - sources for which include works available at:
  • It is quite clear that Washington was NOT an OFFICIAL member of any church
  • As for the prayer book, (a book of prayer for every day & evening of the week - which goes from Sunday to Thursday only) it turns out much worse for JJStroker - the Smithsonian refused to accept it for lack of authenticity. [2] [3] It was Stroker who put it in the article & I suggest he take some of his own advice & report himself for vandalism for including it as fact.--JimWae 01:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It would seem that Stroker "is blurring the line between her personal view and fact which deserves a ban". Or was she ignorant of the two references you cite when she entered those "facts" about the prayer book? David D. (Talk) 07:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Staten Island

--Hi, I posted a message to you on the New York city talk page under the conversation on Staten Island. --Jleon 12:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking Dates

Regardless of the motivation for linking all dates, the end result is that it can make a good article look like a stinking pile of garbage. I side with the style guide on this. Nandesuka 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[[4]]. Likewise, the style guide is clear: 'To determine whether a link to a year, decade, century etc. is appropriate in a specific case, consider the dynamic tension between the guidelines Make only links relevant to the context and Build the web." In other words, blindly linking those dates is wrong. And, as I said, makes articles look like garbage. Nandesuka 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reply does not address this situation accurately. We are talking about what the style guide calls a full date, not a solitary year. See reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christmas#Snipping_extraneous_links --JimWae 01:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't make the promise you want. Readability is a more important concern than keeping the preferences happy. Most readers of Wikipedia don't even have accounts, or preferences. We are an encyclopedia for our readers first, and littering an article with 8,314,144 blue links is, in my opinion, absolutely unacceptable. Nandesuka 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So you oppose the style guideline? But part of its purpose is to settle disputes - and the guide is clear that day & month get linked. Enabling preferences is a courtesy to the reader - and an incentive to make an account. You are needlessly exaggerating! 12 (or possibly less) December 25s is far from 8,314,144 --JimWae 01:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection Reference.

Hey Jim,

I left you a reference on the Jesus talk page.

-Drew

[edit] Perhaps I need to add

a Wars Named After Lincoln section in the Abraham Lincoln article ? Weasel the Lincoln County War in that way ? Carptrash 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

the war was named after the county in which it took place --JimWae 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "includes, as atheists,"

Before we get into a real revert war over that appositive in atheism, I'll go ahead and explain why it's so important to me that it be left out: readability. I think that because it says "all nontheists", it's clear that the sentence defines atheists and not atheism. Thus, "as atheists" is unnecessary. Additionally, I feel that "includes, as atheists," is clumsy phrasing that not only reads as awkward, unnatural prose but has the potential to confuse some readers. Since I think it has cons with no pros, I think it ought to go.

And I realize that those two words are a trivial issue compared to the whole of the article; however, I think they're emblematic of one of the article's two big problems. The first problem is that it covers too many topics in too much detail and needs forking desperately. Once that's completed, the second problem (which this is an example of) needs to be dealt with: convoluted, baroque, and excessively wordy prose. The Literate Engineer 06:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • While nobody would be confused, it is not accurately stated. I think you are exaggerating when you say the wording is awkward - it is more words, yes, but precise use of language is the opposite of awkwardness. Are we defining atheism or atheists? So, it does have cons. --JimWae 07:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for the precise use of language, but I'm also for avoiding redundancy (which is something I consider awkward). Are we defining atheism or atheists? I don't think it matters (because I don't think it's a meaningful distinction), but the rest of the sentence talks about people, which means the sentence only works if it's talking about atheists - therefore "as atheists" is redundant, and I do believe that following up the word "identifies" with a comma-separated appositive is awkward to begin with. And I don't understand what you mean by "it is not accurately stated". What is inaccurate about it? The Literate Engineer 07:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It is inaccurate because no transition is explicitly made from defining ATHEISm to defining ATHEISTS - while "this definition covers all nontheists" makes it hard to be mistaken that a switch has been made, the "this definition" part refers to atheism, not atheists. Furthermore, "nontheists" introduces another (fairly new) term & is jargonese as far as Joe Public is concerned - which I thought you objected to --JimWae 07:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse James Bias

This is one of the least neutral articles I've read in a while. The essay needs to be rewritten to stick to the facts of Jesse James life. At the moment it portrays the Union as something approaching the Third Reich

Most of these POV insertions (including assuming that he faked his death) were made Nov 21 by [5]. I suggest we revert to the last by me on Nov 21 & work from there --JimWae 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the previous article which has now been redacted was biased and or portrayed "Union as something approaching the Third Reich." Even if it does, so what? Isn't it a point of view to say it wasn't? More importantly, by removing any such discussions also removes the motivations behind the James-Younger gang, removes academic research into the clandestine organizations which backed the James-Younger gang, and removes discussion of causes behind what appear to be unexplainable acts of the James-Younger gang.

The fact remains that Union troops and their abolitionist militia auxilleries known as Red Legs have the largest number of atrocities ascribed to them in what was truly an atrocious civil war within the state of Missouri. Records of the period are distinct in representing the wholesale pillaging, burning, rape, and murder of Confederate sympathizers in Missouri. The animosity the Union forces in Missouri engendered, eventually caused later Missouri governments to conduct Congressional investigations which were authoritative in judging Union activities during and after the war as nothing short of crimes against humanity.

Additionally, it is clear from growing research into the James-Younger gang and other groups after the war, that there were socio-economic reasons for the increase in outlawery. These were rooted in Union sectional, political, and class imperialism against the Southern sectional, political, and class structure. By refusing to discuss actions by Northern interests which illuminate this socio-economic oppression, we fail to understand the reasons behind the growth of groups such as the James-Younger gang in post-bellum America.

Rather than impugn the James character with surreptitious remarks about his family such as "hemp-growing...slave owning...timid step-father", which have really no baring on characteristics which might illuminate the James-Younger gang activities, let us stick to real facts such as that the James family were prosperious minor plantation owners of the gentry class, were literate and educated, had helped settle and pacify the region for American civilization, but then had that honor, wealth, and status literally stolen and degraded in a vicious civil war which left Missouri in ruins. Such an illumination would much more reveal the motivations behind Jesse James than that his step-father was a timid hemp grower.

Although the most recent edit has included good biographical information regarding James-Younger activities, they fail to mention that much of the James-Younger activities were targeted upon "scallawag" and "carpetbagger" institutions and individuals. For instance, the notorious Northfield raid was targeted upon a bank owned by two villified Reconstruction Union occupation military governors who were heavily tied to Republican Party establishment figures, especially those which were developing a stranglehold on economic resources in the nation and were attempting to expand that control into areas such as Missouri.

Additionally, the failure of the Northfield raid, the demise of the gang's members, and the dissappearence of the James brothers coincides with a drop-off in other outlaw acts by other gangs. Considering the likely use of counter-intelligence and criminal investigation methods by the aforementioned Republican establishment against a political background of ending Reconstruction government, it is highly likely that the James gang and others ceased operating simply because of larger socio-economic factors involving successful implementation of political oppression techniques. In other words, the James gang was part of an organized effort to resist Northern interests in the Post-bellum period, and that resistence became increasingly tenuous as political factors changed. By ignoring those factors we fail to read the underlying ground upon which the James-Younger gang travelled in it's resistence.

By ignoring Union atrocities we fail to understand the motivation of the James-Younger gang. By censoring data regarding Confederate Partisan Ranger activities to fit a prescribed political viewpoint we fail to read the networks and methodologies which made outlawery successful in the post-bellum period. By inserting ridiculously inane remarks about "hemp growing" and "timidity" or other such slights, it is revealed were the real bias originates from. Lets look at history with unvarnished eyes, not the cynical ones of a propogandist. Consequently I suggest we work from the last edit and build upon that which includes the best biographical data from several viewpoints and sources.-American_cavalier@yahoo.com

[edit] Liar

I am disappointed with your irresponsible behavior. I thought I could expect more of you. Not only did you vandalize the Jesus page by changing references of AD to CE without discussion, but you then removed my restoration of the Jesus page to its original state, calling my edit vandalism. If you believed that both CE and AD should have been referenced on that page, why did you just put CE alone (you removed AD, saying it was POV) in your first edit, but then added AD in your next, supposedly "good faith" edit? PatrickA 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Seems you do not like being accused of that which you so casually & baselessly accuse others. I gave a valid reason in the edit summary to replace previous removal of BCE/CE - which you reverted, giving no reason except to accuse me of vandalism. Regarding title of this section (& whole discussion), please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. AD is POV, CE is not. AD/CE is a compromise. Perhpas I should have learned by now not to be disappointed in such behaviour by "defenders of the faith" --JimWae 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. CE is point of view. It is your point of view that the period from 1 AD to present day is a common era, rather than the period dating from the birth of Jesus Christ. AD is not POV because it is both true that Jesus was born in or near 1 AD, and that BOTH systems are based on this fact. Calling my edit "vandalism" when all I did was restore YOUR vandalism, is absurd. PatrickA 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC).
  • My New Years resolution is to waste less time trying to argue with people who think "wrong" is an argument--JimWae 00:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, and do keep in mind that you're resoluting in the name of the New Year 2006, two thousand and six years since the significant event of the birth of Jesus Christ. Cheers, PatrickA 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RPJ

I've started putting together an RfC against RPJ on a subpage: User:Gamaliel/RPJ. I'm in no hurry to make this a live RfC, so feel free to add evidence or comments to it at your convenience. Gamaliel 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names and titles of Jesus

Hey, would you be willing to look at some recent insertions and edits by an anonymous editor at Names and titles of Jesus? I tried removing the worst of it, but have been swiftly reverted. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson...

I notice we have a disagreement on how the article should be written. Please go to Jeffersons talk page. Thanks, JJstroker 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the several anti-govenment orgs, can examples be provided? Marktunstill 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

I saw your name on the Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. I'd certainly like to nominate you if you are interested, because I think you'd be a fine administrator and you've been around even longer than I. -Will Beback 05:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontology

Regarding sweeping changes made by User:Azamat_Abdoullaev, FYI I have flagged an issue here[[6]]. If you have time, could you please take a look (user's personal vision for wikipedia section). Holon 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Jim,

By nature, I am very polite and patient person, trying to be tolerant of any opponent's opinions. What i am impatient, a professional ignoramus pretending to be an expert and aggressively pushing his ignorance, which sorts are full around now. With your aspiration to be sysop, you must understand that creating any general encyclopedia of quality requires deep knowledge. An entry you contributing to Wikipedia should consolidate the best of various views, perspectives, and positions. This can be done if only you possess encyclopedic learning of the subject. But you evidently don't, since much need learn more. The article of ontology is funny and amusing even for somebody's private web site or as student theses, and hardly anybody can edit this skew view. Other articles, on quantity, time, space, etc., where you marked your presence, strengthened my belief about your incapacity to see the point of these great matters. Take the case of 'quantity'. I wonder how somebody must be so uncritical, self-loving, or just s...to put this bad confusion in his head as an encyclopedic article, read by thousands of young minds. Nobody has time to clean up your mess-up. If you have this belief of possessing proper knowledge of ontological issues, then test yourself by public criticism. Go to the special forums on ontology, like SUO, ONTAC, Semantic Web Ontology, and discuss it with the members of the fora, as i do for a long time. I assure you that they make fun at your learning. Please note encyclopedia is not a good place for cultivating your opinion, however it may be original. [and kindly stop downgrade ontology by reverting your stuff, or it will be 'mercilessly' re-edited, however mind-taxing]. Azamat Abdoullaev 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Azamat seems to think "you're wrong", combined with personal attack, is a good argument. He also seems to have little idea of how wikipedia works. Nowhere did I imply that the ontology article is good the way it is - but his edits mostly just add to the incomprehensible jargonese. A small bit of what he wrote may be worth including - but he will not discuss nor defend his changes. --JimWae 15:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
JimWae, I have to agree. I keep requesting Azamat discuss specific points regarding his proposed revisions to quantity but as yet he has not actually discussed a single one. Holon 05:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And now they are trying to fix the vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StanZegel#Jesus_Article_Vote Robsteadman 13:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh ems 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Talk Vote (again)

Jim: I think we're coming to a resolution of this matter. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I respect the effort you have put into the Jesus article. I guess you are sick of the bickering, but please feel free to vote. A search on (CTSWyneken Version) should get you to the middle of the current vote, which has about 4 options in bold. And no, I'm not expecting you to vote the same way as me. rossnixon 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atom

Actually "massive" simply meant "having mass". As opposed to the photons that bind the atom together but are not mentioned. I can see how that's unclear from the text as written tho. -- Xerxes 16:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Talk Runoff Vote

Hopefully the last on this paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stated clearly that I would like extraneous comments off of the main vote table for the sake of clarity, conciseness, and civility. Please move your comment to the "comments" section. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third time

Yes it is the third time. And it looks like again we are not going to have any winner. sigh, ems 09:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicene Creed, Gospel of John and Catholic Doctrine

I have proposed a revision to the Jesus article, paragraph 3, that I believe reads better while still respecting the current compromise. However, I do not know whether it addresses the issues you raised about Catholic doctrine. Please stop by and comment. Arch O. La 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I would agree with your representation of Catholic doctrine regarding salvation and a baby or child (though I have read conflicting information); however, wouldn't you agree that doctrine would also say that it was because of the atonement of Christ that a just man or a baby can still "go to heaven"? This gets to saying the same thing but using different terminology. I appreciate your thoughts. Storm Rider 21:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt Xians believe people can go to heaven because of Jesus. That is not the same as saying one must "accept" him (or do anything for that matter -- except perhaps not lead an "unjust" life) to be saved --JimWae 21:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimwae needs to study what NPOV means.

personal attack by RPJ 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC) removed - mostly unread here as it seems a duplicate of article talk page harangue anyway

[edit] Go jump in a lake!

I've never deleted stuff from my talk page before - you will be the first --JimWae 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No--it was constructive criticism

The basic theory of this web site is that all significant viewpoints be included. I am trying to explain to you that one does not exclude a viewpoint from PBS, based on newly released documents, that some one was trying to impersonate Lee Oswald in Mexico trying to contact a known assassin.

Before being murdered, Oswald, claimed he was being framed for murder.

The impersonation was less than 60 days before Kennedy was murdered.

You can't delete that information from the article on the assassination by claiming PBS is "speculating" or that PBS is using "junk science," or you have witnesses that say otherwise. Put your alleged evidence up for scrutiny. If your evidence has any merit the reader will likely take it into account. If not, or if you don't have any evidence than so be it.

Your deletions are cleary wrong.

The web site rquires all significant viewpoints be included. PBS has transcripts of President Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover discussing the Oswald impersonator over the phone. you just now deleted those links also.

To become a scholar one must not be afraid of information. You must confront information before you can really undertand it. Hiding from information admits defeat by default and helps no one.

RPJ 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You have been trying to present what you consider an impersonation as a fact and have misrepresented the evidence and ignored, omitted, and iirc deleted counter-evidence. NPOV is not about presenting ONE-sided arguments as you repeatedly do. Perhaps if you considered you yourself had something to learn, your edits would not be removed by so many other editors --JimWae 03:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not, as you claim above, "you just now deleted those links also"
  • NPOV is also about giving balanced weight to material. You enter lengthy, unbalanced and unformatted arguments not only to the body of articles but even to introductions, using multiple anonymous IP addresses. Then you go and harangue people and accuse them of breaking your own distorted version of the rules - half the time addressing the wrong person. 03:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • as evidence of your less than stellar "critical-reading skills" and single-mindedness, LBJ & Hoover never use the word "impersonator" nor any word similar to it. And whatever words Hoover does use, you take at face-value only when they fit your single-mindedness. You accuse him of lying when it is convenient for your single-mindedness (you edit only, or virtually only, JFK assassination articles), but other than that you never consider he might be a bumbling fool covering his ass & BSing his way through a conversation. --JimWae 04:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with every point JimWae has made. RPJ hinders any consideration of the merits of his edits by his trollish behavior. He uses sarcasm, personal attacks and assumes bad faith. He has been 24hr blocked twice, and is looking to be blocked again. This is based mostly on his behavior towards other editors, the value of his edits not-withstanding.
Mytwocents 08:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond, British Columbia: Education

I reverted your edit because that blurb was directly from a study done by the Fraser Institute. I added a citation (which probably should have been done from the start). --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts that one year's rankings by the Fraser Institute by city are appropriate or of general interest to the readers of wikipedia. I see no other cities that single out their "best" high school & think can only be contentious to do so. This is not an article about the school but about the city - and a statement about ALL the schools in the city - one that does not depend on one-year's results by one evaluation team - might be more appropriate. Certainly, even if sourced, it should NOT be stated as fact. By reverting ALL of my edit, you have also reverted what clearly were simple improvements. The rankings could belong in an article on the school McRoberts Secondary School(where it is not even mentioned), but not in one on the city. --JimWae 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism subpage

I noticed your atheism subpage. I'm not sure if there's any etiquette about these things, but as I don't know how satisfied you are with what is there currently, I thought it might be better to comment on it here rather than at Talk:Atheism.

I like the opening sentence that you suggested: "Atheism, in its broadest sense, is any world-view that does not include the presence of gods." A version of this could be swapped in as the first sentence of the Atheism intro I've proposed, and would require only minimal edits to the rest of the text to work. Your approach is actually close to the way I think about the topic myself – I have been assuming that such a characterization might stray too close to calling atheism itself a belief system to be acceptable to some. It also avoids the hair-splitting use of the same wording both as the general characterization and as a definition, which I'm happy to do away with.

I also think the point about epistemological vs. ontological positions is important. I'd been meaning to include something like that, but haven't remembered to so far – plus, your characterization is better than anything I would have been likely to come up with. I think the two sentences that follow are technical in a slightly different way that may not be appropriate for the intro, but I don't have a strong opinion on this though.
--plover 08:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lecturing...

A lot of what I was saying on Talk:United States was aimed at Ryz05 rather than you but I didn't want to say so explicitly for fear of pissing him off. So, instead, I've pissed you off. Sigh... sometimes you just can't win.

I don't want to take sides on this issue but I do think that editing and reverting back and forth is counter-productive. I'm trying to get both of you to take the editing "offline" (so to speak) so that we can all discuss what the issues are and achieve consensus together.

I'm sorry if what I wrote came across as pedantic. It's a failing of mine, I guess.

Please list your objectives for the intro paragraph and let's work on building consensus.

--Richard 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question to you, JimWae

I have noticed your good work over the past months and was wondering if you would be interested in an RfA on your behalf? I believe you may be in a good position to be successful. Best, Kukini 05:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am gathering by your lack of response that you are not interested. My error. Best, Kukini 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the slow response. Though I do have an interest, I cannot commit to spending any more time on wikipedia than I do now. I do appreciate the thought --JimWae 14:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagarism

how can something be plagarism when you credit the original author?--Kev62nesl 05:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim its is called the fair use doctrine, being it is an american author writing the article the fair use doctrine would apply--Kev62nesl 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

well a yankee fan should avoid at all costs drunk red sox fans, from southie or dot, after a loss. Depends on what you like otherwise. Do you like american history? If you are a JFK fan you should visit the JFK library. the city has plenty of museum. Do the freedom trail. Fanuiel Hall is a must for history. --Kev62nesl 08:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

Oddly enough, I think the February 5th date is no longer disputed by Lincoln historians. However, I agree that proper citations are required in order to make this assertion. I'll see what I can turn up. Even if I do, there will be many older sources that show the April date, so we'll have to stay up on this for a long time to come. Rklawton 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno's paradoxes#Questions raised

THANK YOU for placing "Questions raised" in the Discussion page.

One might also raise some questions about Aristotle's neutrality on the subject of Zeno and his paradox. An Aristotle, not the one born 384 BC, was mentioned in Plato's Parmenides who was quizzed by Parmenides and not Socrates. It is possible that the Aristotle of the Academy was a relative or named after the Aristotle questioned since both are linked to the philosophers of Athens. It could be the other way around and the Aristotle here is a fictional character named after Plato's pupil. There probably was some rivalry between the mainland Greeks and the Italian Greeks. The mainland Greeks were somewhat behind the Ionians and the Pythagoreans and trying to better themselves. The Pythagorean code of silence might have generated some resentment.

The Greeks were not good at giving proper credit for the sources of their ideas. They included the work of others in their work without qualm. Euclid's elements certainly predate him. Aristotle appears to have included some of Parmenides' work in his Physics if Plato's dialogue is correct. We could give him the credit of the doubt and say that he was ignorant about who to attribute the ideas to. Socrates and Plato claim that ideas are universals. Are they saying that they belong to everyone?

What are the contexts of Zeno's paradoxes? Is it POV to assume that they are serious statements? He might have been facetious when he raised the argument. In Plato's Parmenides he seems to have been easily amused; he may have had a sense of humor.

There is probably more to Zeno's paradoxes than is in the article. What their context was has been lost in time with the people and works of the era.

As for the article itself, we could follow Einstein's suggestion and "keep it simple." I think that there would be something missing though. Time has a way of editing the record for good or ill. --67.181.210.179 06:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work today on American Civil War

For a few hours today it seemed like were working together to make a positive impact. I hope we can move the page forward. 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Series" wording

JiimWae, kindly seek consesus to change the series wording on Template:Christianity. Thanks. Netscott 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • What's wrong with set? It is not an ordered collection of articles, it is a disordered collection. Set covers both, series does not. --JimWae 07:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Shall I link to our previous extensive talk about this? Netscott 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, I don't recall ever getting an answer from you about why you use the three letter combination "Xty" for Christianity. Would you kindly explain why you do that? Thanks. Netscott 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • did we ever discuss using "set" instead - it certainly is a more accurate term--JimWae 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • because I mistype it otherwise. You are aware of what the X means, no? --JimWae 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did you revert so quickly? One way to assess "consensus" is to see if anyone else would have reverted it besides you --JimWae 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • JimWae, do you not recall my explanation vis-a-vis a publisher publishing a "series" of books:
Series (set of books)
noun [C] plural series		 : a set of books published by the same company which deal with the same subject
Wikipedia the publisher has a set of articles which deal with the same subject... ergo they have a series of articles. Netscott 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Did I not reply that that could never be a complete definition of "set"? "Set" is accurate for the template, "series" is a fantasy trading on ambiguity at best --JimWae 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are offended by my use of "Xty", you are misinformed. If you are not offended, your request seems either petty or manipulative--JimWae 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm anything but offended, but it is difficult to take your points seriously when you use an abbreviation that tends to incline one to view your usage of that abbreviation as demonstrative of contempt for the subject matter. Everyone mistypes... that seems like a poor excuse to not be scholarly and properly utilize the terminology that corresponds to this field of scholarly study. Netscott 08:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I mistype it 95% of the time - and get annoyed when I must correct it. Do you want me to become any further annoyed by Xns & Xty? Does God? --JimWae 08:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • God? I see the irony but really does "God" matter here? Netscott 08:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If thine eye offend thee & thou seest "contempt" in an abbreviation that originated with Xns, then what is the recommendation for thine eye? --JimWae 08:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I recommendeth that thou refraineth from utilization of the rather unscholarly abbreviation Xty and thou forthwith typeth "Christianity". :-) Netscott 09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't hold your breath. The X was widely used by early Xns and was the basis for the usage of the fish symbol for Xty --JimWae 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington's religious beliefs

I noticed what you did to that particular section. I was thinking of re-writing the whole thing a while back but I never got around to it. How simple it was to just put a few of Nellie's words in there. Anyway, what do you think of the "Washington was a Christian" external link at the bottom. Should it stay or go? --Sparkhurst 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its a good idea to leave Nelly's words in, to allow the best "evidence" for his being a Xn - not much at all really. That new link is far too unscholarly, I would agree --JimWae 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Gbdill added a WallBuilders link to external links. Is WB to be considered a scholarly source? I've been under the impression that WB is a tainted source. --Sparkhurst 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a "source" that "Jared Sparks, in searching for information on Washington's religious habits, dispatched a letter to Nelly, asking if she knew for sure whether George Washington indeed was a Christian" - which puts her remarks in a context seldom admitted. I, myself, will leave it for now - there's much else to deal with. Someone will remove it in time--JimWae 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, do you have time to report her violation of WP:3RR to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR ? She's made about 6 or 7 reversions - at least 2 since being warned?--JimWae 20:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we are dealing with a sock puppet. --Sparkhurst 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

hello, I noticed you have a nice editing background and wanted to ask if you could look over my page on atheism. Im trying to make my own page and put it up for adoption on the atheism talk page. Could you perhaps give me some insite on how I might collaborate something like this. feel free to give me a message on my talk page, heres my version of athiesm. Its not complete yet, but im getting close. Feel free to comment on things and edit anything you want. Somerset219 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rjensen

Would you care to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rjensen or its talk page? Septentrionalis 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Oyster Bay

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were still working, as I didn't see any subsequent moves. It looks like my wikilink to the part of the MOS concerning North American city names got removed--here it is.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for getting this fixed so slowly, but yesterday I experienced a catastrophic crash forcing me to re-install Windows, and rebuild many settings, so I hope you can be patient with me for the duration. I believe that everything is in place and redirecting correctly now, but if there's anything else you need me to do, please let me know.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Thanks for getting the page deleted so I could move to it --JimWae 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me to help with the ACW skirmish

Don't get yourself close to 3RR over Dr J. I'll help anytime. BusterD 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that restoring flags that others delete before discussion has taken place does not count - but I would appreciate any assistance you have to offer - that guy is drains too much of my time anyway --JimWae 05:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you need me to drop that NPOV tag back in? BusterD 07:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks for reverting RJ's insertion again of "seceded and ... formed another country". I did not see you'd already changed it when I put it in, so I reverted myself --JimWae 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We're almost stumbling over each other to revert his changes, all the while I'm trying to shepherd two bright young things through their first bias rants on two different pages. It's funny how similar the situations are, yet no users except myself are in common. BTW, I'm trying to identify interest in a potential ACW portal. Would you be interested in seeing or helping maintain such a portal if one was proposed/created? BusterD 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Back again. If Dr. J reverts delinking in introduction once more, he's in vio of 3RR. I'd like to see him spanked if he acts badly. Do you mind looking at the page, and if agree, assist? Thanks. BusterD 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I have actually been living life outside wikipedia today - is there anything I can do right now? --JimWae 04:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Townships

You write (in edit history), "Long Islanders are acutely aware of Townships - sentence should likely be deleted". Since there are no political entities called "townships" in New York, in what way are Long Islanders "acutely aware" of them? Certainly many Long Islanders, and many other New Yorkers and New Englanders, are aware of townships as something they have in New Jersey and Pennsylvania; do you have any sources for your assertion that they recognize "township" as applying to their town governments? 121a0012 03:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • LIers use "the township" in place of the full name of the "Town of ...", rather than calling it "the town", because you cannot capitalize Town when speaking & so it could be ambiguous. The Civil township article does not indicate (at least not very clearly) that "Township" is being used as a title rather than as a description. Perhaps the error is compounded in Town of Hempstead, New York - which seems to indicate town & township are very synonymous. --JimWae 04:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See Political subdivisions of New York State#Town. Saying they do not recognize them as townships is off the mark - anyone would know what was being referred to. Rather one could say "that is not the title normally used"--JimWae 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are 3 places where TOB refers to itself as a township--JimWae 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murder blah blah

Do you understand what the deal is with this "murder is defined as unjustified killing" business, because I don't... :-)

It can't exactly ground moral judgements, because in order to label a killing "murder" you need to understand the term "unjustified", which implies that you already have some other ground for deciding if acts are right or wrong.

Anyway, I'm asking you if there's some really obvious thing that I'm missing in this discussion. :-) Evercat 01:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I fear. "making all killing the same, including killing in self-defence, is not very helpful". What I mean is this: A statement like "killing is wrong" enables you to make judgements about the world. I do not claim those judgements would be correct. No statement that is true for a priori reasons ("murder is wrong") will let you make judgements about the world. Evercat 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] geopsychology

hey Jim, Ive noticed your contributions on the atheist page and your knowledge of philosphy. I was wondering if you could help me, or maybe you could, start a page/article for geopsychology. I learned about this term in high school, so I don't remember much about it. there is some stuff from google, but then again I don't know much about it. I thought you might be interested. If you recommend any books to me that would be great also. Thanks. Somerset219 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Somerset, Geopsychology is not any more connected to philosophy than psychology itself. It is not an area I have formally studied & I suspect it would be difficult to presnt much other than some sweeping generalizations. If you start the article, let me know & I will try to find time to look at it though --JimWae 04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk page atheism/ religion and atheism

please provide instruction and/or mediation on talk page of atheism. discusion on what constitutes as "religious" and what "spiritual" is. I have made valid arguments that have not been refuted, yet they revert paragraph. Thank You! Somerset219 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for being diligent and civil, and helping to eventually come to a compromise on the Atheism page. Somerset219 06:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for being diligent and civil, and helping to eventually come to a compromise on the Atheism page. Somerset219 06:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontology 2

Hello, I was wondering if you might be able to give me the benefit of your expertise. I'm trying to cleanup the Architectural history article. Under the section in Postmodernism the following statement is made "Flattening the Ontological plane". I've been trying to think of a way to reword this so it makes sense to non-philosophers (me). I think it refers to a statement in the Ontology article that says [Postmodernism]......which holds that facts are fluid and elusive, so that we should focus only on our observational claims. What do you think? Also, in Ontology wouldn't Jacques Derrida be considered a prominent ontologist?--Mcginnly | Natter 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I can only guess - there were trends in architecture away from decorative ornamentation & making bold statements towards more functionality. Less "things"? --JimWae 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Spotswood Dudley

Hello, Sir. It has come to my attention that soon after I posted my (attempt at a) passionate request for a vote on the which of the two accepted time connotations to use in the Jesus article, a vote actually commenced within the blink of an eye. I have to say that I am extremely moved by the willingness of so many people in the editing community to listen and actually accept a suggestion from such a junior editor like me. However, I also remember that in my first days, I was very innapropriate, and quite a vandal. Indeed, while this was a matter of months ago, I still feel profoundly embarrassed that my first edits on Wikipedia were of such derision. As far as I have been informed, you are one of the most senior and respected editors in all of Wikipedia, and being as such, you were quick to uncover my early acts of vandalism. Regarding this, I feel that an apology is long overdue to both you and the community. While it may not have been a major act of vandalism, I understand that even a single small edit on an important page like Jesus' is far more severe than an entire rewrite of something like the Shugenja article. And so, knowing that my acts were infantile in nature and very innapropriate, I grant you and anyone else who may be upset with me my dearest apologies. Thank you for your time, Spotswood Dudley 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Spelling

Great Links - Thanks for the links on the proper Canadian English usage of "Program(me)". I enjoyed! --Niloc 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Better than edit-warring, eh? The style manuals should come in handy. I've seen a few -ise -ize disputes too --JimWae 04:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopefully Unintentional Derogatory Comment(s)

I hope you did not intend to portray/scold me for being a student. I have earned more than that.

On another note: I do not believe in sacrificing historical accuracy for the winds of political correctness. As a result I despise everyone and everything that is overly seeped in overt PC'ness. Neutrality is one thing but it can, and has, been carried too far too many times. I had tried for several hours to locate wikipedias policy on the AD/CE BC/BCE issue to no avail. Jcforge 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There's nothing inaccurate about using CE. If you wish to talk of inaccuracies, there is the issue of Jesus being born 4 to 8 years before he was born. --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The present guidelines about era notations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras The policy was not always exactly the same. Btw, the very first edition of Zoroastrianism used BCE, not BC. --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The current chronology that makes this the year 2006 is in wide-spread use throughout the world by people willing to use it to have a common way of talking about the date. It is unfair (& impolite & bullyish) to insist that these people also add abbreviations to this notation which literally mean that Jesus is Lord & Messiah, when a more neutral alternative (which still uses the once-supposed birthyear of Jesus) is available. Still Xns are gathering to prevent this alternative from gaining any greater currency - insisting (in a decidedly uncharitable & faithless manner) on imposing their religious viewpoints on unwilling people. --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My comment "Your preferences are fine for your term papers at school" was meant to emphasize that all I saw in what you wrote were your personal preferences. Everyone is free to continue to use what they prefer for any papers for which they are the sole author (unless perhaps a prof or editor has expressed his preference). This, however, is a joint project & one's personal preferences are neither enforceable, nor a good enough reason to change policy. Btw, I believe that even post-graduate students occasionally write term papers, and while my comment may not have been as applicable as I perhaps thought, I still do not consider it derogatory --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It seemed like it was. Yes, the very first iteration of the entry was in BCE, but then it was changed for the vast majority of the entries at BC/AD.
    • You're not seriously going to bring up the fact that a middle ages monk messed up on the "exact" date of Jesus Christ's birth are you?
      • that's the only point involving what you called accuracy
        • sorry, I should have used the term precision instead, accurate down to less than a decade difference is still pretty good for something that is singularly undocumented and due to the numerous calender changes that had occurred since
    • CE is a modern construct (coined in the 1800's). It was created to make overly hyperactive folks (such as yourself it seems) feel better about dates.
      • at one time AD was a mmodern construct too
        • now that's splitting that hair a few too many times... the AD term is the better part of 1500 years old, hardly 'modern' by any stretch
    • You do know that the calender that the world uses is based off the Gregorian Calender which was created by members of the Catholic Church.
      • I think I mentioned something like that
    • Just b/c you are not "Xns" (which I find offensive since this whole thing seems to be spiraling off I might as well get my gripe in) does not mean that you should force everyone else to change the dating system just b/c you feel slighted.
      • as I said - YOU will always be free to continue to use AD in your personal writings, nobody is forcing you - rather Xns are forcing their view by trying to stop people from using CE
        • well some of them may go a bit overboard with it. my view is that CE usage exists just to spite the AD nomenclature
    • "Others criticize it as an unnecessary euphemism or an attempt at political correctness, pointing out that the pivotal year 1 still centers on the supposed date of Jesus' birth." Consider me a staunch "other".
      • Those people want to find some other event to be the calendar pivot. I think any event is open to NPOV objections, and am content to stick with the one that will not result in every date needing to be recalcualted & reprinted --JimWae 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • History should not be re-written just to satisfy the gripes over "political correctness" or "neutrality"
      •  ??? (see above) --JimWae 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Just that there is no real purpose to the whole AD/BC vs CE/BCE thing other than to assuage someones 'hurt' feelings about it not being 'neutral'.... It is tantamount to insisting that every article should be written in Esperanto instead of whichever language the author prefers, or other English spelling variant arguments where color = colour. You wouldn't want to homogenize that would you?

[edit] Muhammad

Hi, Written down because it implies that this was not done before, this is wrong because it was in the majority already written down, compiled is more accurage because it was brought together and arranged after his death into a consolidated unified script, from all the disparate writings and fragments that existed prior to it as well as the merging of the 4 major manuscripts that contained substantial written versions of the Quran, the contents of which is are a seperate debate in themselves. While his dictations were memorized, they were also commited to writing on parchments, skins etc, it's mentioned a bit further down in the article as well.--Tigeroo 07:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So why not say they were written down during his lifetime instead of the vague "compiled"? Your most recent edits contain many redundancies again: last prophet is in there 2 or 3 times again, so is "restored" true religion --JimWae 07:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Compiled is accurate not vague because it means to gather into a single book, or put things together from several sources, so it was compiled from other written and oral "scraps", and "collections". I agree restored true religion, and possible the other redundancies were from previous edits, and could be fixed, but the point is moot with a new tighter version up.--Tigeroo 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo your recent edit summary says 'Please see WP:NPOV#Religion as a guide to edits' but I just checked and there is no section of NPOV called this! Religion SHOULD'T be a guide to anyones edits! Would you agree?Opiner 07:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't wikilink was just using short on that edit, I linked and quoted the relevant link. Religion is a valid guide for a POV in enyclopediac material which actually the quoted sections tells better than me on why IT SHOULD be there, but yes if you were instead referring rather to religion in terms of a not accomodating other POV approach to editing the wiki, I agree.--Tigeroo 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

but no I wasn't vandalizing.

I just think it's funny that some people don't want an article questioning how old Aisha was at marriage but an article questioning Licolns sexual orientation is fine by them. grazon 21:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining --JimWae 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg

Hi JimWae what do you think of this picture? Its in the Muhammad article and it looks pretty fake to me so I nominated for deletion. There is discussion on talk page and IMD. Plus, pictures of inanimate objects unaccompanied by prophets insults my religion:)Opiner 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am staying out of the picture issue. I think there are too many pictures of white guys in the Jesus article. Maybe we need to discuss pictures of Gabriel & M's horse ;) Are silhouettes "acceptable" Did M have a beard? Was his hair black? Do we know what kind of clothing he wore? Was his skin dark or light? Does it seem we know more about his appearance than that of Jesus? --JimWae 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

M had a beard and is reported as advocating beards as a badge of identity. Actually we know quite a bit more about him, personality wise, looks, preferences, dislikes etc. Quite a lot of reports, he is probably the only major religious figure most historians believe to have lived in the "full light of history" to quote one, so we could have some soso artists impressions. Ofcourse there are no actual portraits because of his ban. Anyway thats no contribution to this dialog, and while I don't have a problem with incorporating artists impressions its a dogmatic affair I am steering clear off myself.--Tigeroo 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey one the galleries Itaqallah linked to has pic of Muhammad's hair and clothes! It looks like a museum of forgeries.[7]

I gave up on deletion, though it still shouldnt be in the article for simple reason, its probably a fake. Please take a look at my new introduction proposal for Muhammad. The X believe Y believe compromise psychologically invites X and Y to take sides, argue about the order which in this form can never be stable, is not about Muhammad but about US and what WE think today, and is just not a normal way to write an article.Opiner 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite possible it is not a fake, there are some "relic" kind of items in circulation reputed to be his. Then there are in turkish musuems weapons and armors etc. reported to have been used as his.--Tigeroo 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McTaggart/Barbour

Seems to me, for whatever it's worth, that there should be room for mentioning both McTaggart and Barbour, the latter being a contemporary and well respected scientist. Your statement that McTaggart is more frequently cited will be a self-fulfilling prophesy if people consistently insist on citing his views over those of others, some more contemporary, who've had similar views!

JCNSmith 12:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mono

An worthy change you've made to Muhammad. I wonder if you might not also find something of interest in Muhammad as a diplomat. I've filed a Request for Comment, but only one editor has responded.Proabivouac

[edit] Of Possible Interest?

http://smithjcn.googlepages.com/time

JCNSmith 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
For keeping articles up to date, rv vandalism and making sure they look like a wikipedia article Jeffklib 00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnostic theism and the Certainty series?

What do u think of Agnostic theism and User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic theism?

And do u know what the Certainty series box(Talk) is about?

And how about Infallibility (notice: math and logic as in philosophy section and bank transactions on in psychology and sociology section) and Certainty (notice: the Logic section)?

--Tsinoyboi 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to look at it sometime. Agnosticism is an epistemological position. Atheism is an ontological (what nouns do I think refer to entities) position.--JimWae 07:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant what do u think of the pages? I'll be patient for you to get the chance to read them sometime, and it'll be on my watchlist. --Tsinoyboi 07:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science

The Quran and science is up for deletion again, will you weigh in? In my opinion, at the very least it is OR. Arrow740 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Madison

Thanks for helping. Republican Party with dates is certainly better than Republican Party without dates; but I would prefer to avoid the confusing and partisan term altogether. (Also, which dates? 1790, 1792, and 1795 are all defensible as beginnings, 1824-5 and 1828-9 both defensible as the end, if there was an end.) Septentrionalis 20:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Era

Please read the talk page for Common Era. Just as I was discussing a problem with the first paragraph, you changed it in a way that removes my issue, but introduces a new one: the AD/BC system was in use for centuries, so it is not correct to say that AD, BC, CE, or BCE necessarily indicate the Gregorian calendar is being used. --Gerry Ashton 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Quran and science

Do you think this should be included or maybe deleted?[8]Opiner 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laicité

I just saw your the vote to merge the two articles together and your consequent vote.. I am pasting a reply that I had put on that page.. Such a move would be gravely incorrect from an academic POV, please feel free to contact me with any additional questions that you might have..

  • "Strong disagree.. As a lawyer I have to disagree, they might seem similar to the unfamiliar eye, but they are fundamentally different.. The fact that it is a french word doesn't mean anything, there is a different word because they are different concepts.. anglo-saxon secularism and french laicité are not the same, one of them is a system where the state gives the freedom to religion and religious institutions to do whatever they want, the other is one where the state actively monitors and controls the activities of religious institutions to make sure that the religions don't have the same authority and functions as the state (schools etc).. In laicité, religions are always considered inferior to the republic, the laws of the republic can limit and force religious institutions to abandon their practices; spiritual movements considered to be cults are clearly defined by law, banned and actively prosecuted.. A Jehovah's witness in France or Turkey cannot refuse blood transfusion, if they do, they will be forced to accept the transfusion and later prosecuted.. There is a reason why that article was named as such, it is not only France that practices laicité, it is a universal principle born from the French revolution. From an academics point of view, removal of that article would constitute a grave deficiency for Wiki.. I know that the article in its current state is not very comprehensive and can lead the reader to think that they are the same, but a concept as such truly deserves to have its own article. I have joined wiki only a few weeks ago and completely rewrote the article Turkish Constitution, I gave a specific link to laicité and not to secularism for this reason.. When I have the time, I am willing to work on the laicité article to make it more comprehensive and demonstrate its fundamental philosophical differences it has with secularism. And definitely dont move it to sep of church and state!! Turkey is a secular country, that would be highly eurocentric to label what it practices like this, it is a predominantly muslim country.. Please reconsider, over the last two centuries there have been many works written to point out and define the conceptual differences between anglo-saxon secularism and french laicité.. We would be doing all of them a great injustice if that article was not to have its own listing.. regards "Baristarim 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"Btw, it is not only France that practices laicité, that is not the reason it was named in french. Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has been intentionally practising laicité and not secularism.. I know that in English secularism is used as a blanket word, but most European academicians would know the conceptual difference between these two.. Another very important point: Laicité is not the seperation of church and state as equals, it is the subordination of church to the state in a hierarchy, religion only being able to do what the laws of the republic allow them: religions are considered as inferior to the moral superiority of the republic which is defined as the soul of the nation.. I have lived in TR, US and FR, and believe me, there is a fundamental difference in nature.. By definition such a merge would be illogical, since it would assume that laicité is the French method of seperating the church and the state.. I hope that u were able to follow me, this is one of the more delicate philosophical matters in political sciences and law, so it might be extremely hard to grasp the concept if one is not familiar with the subject (history of secularism in Europe) beforehand.."Baristarim 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But I did not vote for a merge, nor argue for one --JimWae 02:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I misunderstood.. You said that there needed to be a different article like sep of church and state in FR with a French title.. Therefore I assumed that you wanted to change the title of the article in that manner and just focus on its practice in FR w/o talking about the conceptual differences of laicité and secularism in general.. Maybe I was wrong.. Come to think of it, the merge vote in that talk page is extremely confusing, I haven' exactly figured out what people were agreeing with and what they wanted.. cheers! Baristarim 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prophet Muhammad in other religions/religious traditions

Please check the article talk page, Thank you ColdFire 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planck Time

Time#Natural_unit_of_time: "According to current theory, it is the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured." I'm afraid the claim is a bit too strong. If by current theory we mean Relativity then it may be possible to derive violation of causality on any scale from the existance of "the smallest measurable unit of time". I would either reword it saying something about "fundamental difficulties applying current theory at the Planck scale" or remove it. --68.7.88.78 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Planck time article says: This thought experiment draws on both general relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Combined, these two theories imply that it is impossible to measure position to a precision less than the Planck length, or duration to a precision greater than the time a photon traveling at c would take to travel a Planck length. Smallest measurable unit does not mean smallest possible unit --JimWae 22:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. Even though that "thought experiment" is speculative, it is relevant and useful in the context of the Planck Time topic. Out of that context, I'm afraid that any statement about "smallest measurable time" is misleading. I'm saying that the described experiment is speculative because it involves a black hole preventing the observer from obtaining information. According to Hawking, that black hole will give back the information after it has evaporated. And it will evaporate rather soon. According to others, the existance of such black hole is questionable. And in the General Relativity framework, "smallest measurable" does mean "smallest possible" as we can only talk about events in terms of observations in spacetime. I'm not a specialist and may be mistaken. But I have met too many people who believe that time and space are quantized (discrete) based on Wikipedia. I edited Time with the intent to clear out the misconception that it has been spreading. --68.7.88.78 04:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We are working towards the same purpose in not having the article assume thqt time is quantized. My outlook is that it is not something that can be measured at all - but part of the measuring system - and so while there is no limit to how small we can specify a time, there is a limit to how small a time we can measure an event - and talk about any observable difference. Must dash --JimWae 04:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this can be turned into a philosophical issue: is measurment the same as experiencing the event (registering it in spacetime) or is it obtaining the knowldge about the event assuming causality, sequence of interactions, etc. If light travels from A to B then any observer at any point between A and B (I mean in spacetime, not just space) will experience (detect) light. On the other hand, if event A causes event B that in turn causes event C, and both AB and BC are Planck-scale intervals, then I may agree that the observer who detected both A and C might not be able to detect B because of uncertainty. So the claim about the smallest measurable time may be valid (although still questionable) in one context, but misleading in another. Also note that the argument that is supposed to show that the Planck interval is the smallest measurable employs both the Relativity and Quantum frameworks. Confused? I am. So I think that since the Time article is supposed to be accessible to a broader audience it should be sufficient just to give the reader the link to Planck time that defines an appropriate context for the "smallest measurable" claim. Or, as I suggested reword the claim to say about "fundamental difficulties" rather than theoretical impossibility. Thanks for your attention. --68.7.88.78 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official languages

Hi - The BR you put in the Official languages entry in the infobox for the Canada article causes a problem with the appearance using Safari in classic skin. I've changed the template so that this BR should not be necessary to prevent the problem you were fixing. Can you try it without the BR and see how it looks (with the changed version of the template)? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

- Well 'language' is singular (always?) now so it's not needed. --JimWae 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPJ

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Request for comment/RPJ. Gamaliel 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Life and work have intervened. I may have time for this again in about 2 weeks --JimWae 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Shall not be Infringed"

You cited: 3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

When in fact...

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

Using this antiquated definition, the pro-gun argument is still sound: A breech of any part of a contract is a breech of the entire contract, a contract being an agreement that is contingent on all of its aspects being met. In the context of Social_contract_theory, which was pervasive throughout the political thought of the time, it makes perfect sense that they used such a word. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For context, No_taxation_without_representation (and the subsequent American Revolution) was not a movement motivated by increased costs due to taxes. The reality was that the taxes were very small or nonexistant. Many felt that even the smallest unrepresentative tax was tantamount to a massive government overtake simply because the principle of self-government had been infringed upon. The use of the word "infringe" is far more powerful in that it does not allow for a slipperly slope; even the slightest break or violation of a right was an automatic violation of all rights. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

  • RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
  • RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
  • Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hicksville

I thought all trains (Ronkonkoma and Port Jefferson) stopped at Hicksville. ([9]) -- Robert See Hear Speak 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

see http://www.mta.info/lirr/Timetable/Branch.htm?Folder=Branch&Branch=Ronkonkoma&Direction=East&Period=Weekdays -at least one evening train goes from Penn Station non-stop to Bethpage, another non-stop to Wyandanch -- even skipping Jamaica --JimWae 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion on the SUNY Stonybrook page

Hello sir.

Thank you VERY much for removing the section of my edit that I worked on for over half an hour! Lots of people say that I "ruin others' hard work" when I vandalise a page by adding things, but YOU sir, oh... YOU have ruined MY work. I think it's NICE to describe how the intricacies of the phone system at SBU work and how to "hack" on public phones. Wouldn't you find that interesting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.225.64.229 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

It is not notable enough, nor of enough general interest, to be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a blog site. --JimWae 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, go throw yourself in a ditch! Who are YOU to set the standards of what's appropriate? I shall reverse your reversal, you swine! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajo Mama (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Marbel Hill

Thanks for remembering it in the New York City revision!!!--futurebird 13:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time

Your first edit sujmmary read: "aren't measurements real enough?" This made no sense; the text that you removed concerned the perfectly legitimate distinction between the absolute and relative time. The former view holds that time is real, the latter that it consists in the relationships between events.

Your second edit summary was: "Undo revision 99745266 by Mel Etitis (talk) remove editorial QUESTION - again!)". Leaving aside the incorrect implication that you were giving the same reasson, this is not an editorial question. Philosophy texts, including encyclopædias, often use a question as a way of bringing out a distinction between two positions.

That the article, including this sentence, could be improved is beyond question; the same applies to most of the Wikipedia articles on philosophy. Removing this sentence doesn't improve the article, though, and it's difficult to tell why you think that it does. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • And what does "So, is it (being time) a real thing that is all around us, or is it simply just a human measurement?" add to the article? It is barely grammatical, it asks a question that never gets answered (and that wikipedia can never answer), and the simplified dichotomy (as explicitly presented in the question), suggests that measurements are not "real". Plus, we are "hearing" the voice of the editor. It reads like a high-school kid asking for an answer for his essay assignment. --JimWae 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it could (like the rest of the article) be improved. The question is rhetorical, as I've already pointed out, not editorial. Moreover, it certainly doesn't imply (not even remotely) that measurements aren't real. If there are only measurements, then time isn't real, but instrumental. You are familiar with the the subject, and with philosophy in general, aren't you? (Sorry, that reads more aggressively than I intended; I ask only for information.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider please that you might be using "real" in a very narrow "physical reality" sense? Are promises not real? Why should time's being defined only by measurements make time "unreal"? --JimWae 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in original research here; the article refers correctly to a standard debate between philosophers such as Leibniz and Clarke concerning the reality or relativity of time. It does so using the standard terms in a standard way, as a Wikipedia article should. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Franklin's deism

JimWae - In the "religion" section of the Benjamin Franklin article you commented that a true deist believes that "Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it." This implies that a deist believes he can change God's divine plan for the destiny of humans everywhere depending upon the behavior and actions of an individual. Now, my quotes in the Franklin article came from Isaacson which are ultimately based on the deism expounded by Matthew Tindal in his "deist bible", Christianity as Old as the Creation in 1730). As for the position you take on deism, it was expounded by Lord Herbert of Cherbury during the early the first half of the 17th century. Because deism has evolved over the centuries, expecially over the question of prayer, we have to compare Franklin to the deism that was prevalent in his day. So the question is, which of these men's ideas were more prevalent in Franklin's day, Lord Herbert of Cherbury or Tindal? Franklin's (1706-1790) early brush with deism in the 1720's probably was more akin to the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. But for the second half of Franklin's life, Tindal's work was predominant, which taught that prayer was fruitless due to their understanding that God put everything into motion a long time ago and that man has no say in it (see deism). During this latter part of Franklin's life, he was definitely out of step with most deists. Today, deists seem to be changing their tune on this doctrine, reverting back to some doctrines found in the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and away from Tindal. Isaacson argues that Franklin was not a pure deist, as many biographers also believe today (in comparison to Tindal's deism), but was actually a man who believed in the value of good deeds and prayer to influence god to change the course of humanity. If you disagree with Isaacson, please provide your reasoning, with references please. (Gaytan 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

  • I have edited most of your incorrect summaries of Tindal's work --JimWae 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founding Fathers and deism

I have corrected your misinterpretation of Tindal on his view of prayer in the George Washington article. Yes, he did view particular kinds of prayers as a duty of mankind, but not all of them. He spoke harshly against prayers that sought to alter Deity's divine plan by stating "There are few so gross to imagine, we can direct infinite wisdom in the dispensation of providence, or persuade him to alter those laws he contrived before the foundation of the world for putting things in a regular course." No interpretation is needed; he clearly denounces prayers which seek particular blessings from God. That is, like all deists of his day, prayer should be done only to thank God for his role in our lives, not to suggest ways for him to to improve our lives. Prayers of gratitude are those prayers which he specifically states are "a duty, as it raises in us a due contemplation of the divine attributes, and an acknowledgment of his great and constant goodness, and serves to keep up a constant sense of our dependence on him; and as it disposes us to imitate those perfections we adore in him, in being kind and beneficent to one another." While Washington's statements are replete with expressions of gratitude toward God (prayers that Tindal explained were "a duty"), he also suggested that Americans "implore His protection and favor", to allow the national government to be wise and just; to "protect and guide" all nations; to promote "true religion and virtue, and the increase of science"; and to "grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best" (from Washington's Thankgiving Proclamation). All of this, according to Tindal, is "gross to imagine" since Washington asking all Americans to "direct infinite wisdom." And, although you may not find it in your personal library, my personal library is full of biographers and authors who believe Washington was not a deist. So, I have changed the article to express this fact by saying "some" biographers believe Washington was a deist, and "some" don't. I am not arguing that any of the Founders were "kinda Christians," I only wish to point out that while they were not Christian, they were not typical deists either, thereby leaving them in limbo with respect to their preferred religion. But, they were all, God-fearing men who entreated God through prayer regularly. Gaytan 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • He is not actually even denouncing such prayers - he is describing as gross those (few?) who imagine such prayers to be less than futile. (He does not say if he values every act of prayer, but even those asking to suspend the laws of nature would qualify as being mindful of mankind's dependence on him.) Prayers that the US government be wise are more directed at a change in people than in a change in God's plan. When one prays to be worthy of something, one is not usually asking the rules be relaxed for worthiness --JimWae 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am concerned about what you said elsewhere about masquerading - was that directed at me? Should I take you seriously or not? --JimWae 04:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have edited GW & religion agins: Tindal does not DENOUNCE any prayers - and he presents a positive view of prayer FIRST, he clearly values many kinds of prayer - including praising as well as thanking - & mentions another gross thing: praying to alter "natural laws" --JimWae 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK JimWae. Looks like your idea of Deism is actually evolving into something almost compatible to Christianity (but with no belief in miracles or divine revelation, of course). My problem is with those Wiki editors who claim that Deism is closer to Atheism than Christianity, that is why I say that "deism is a code work for atheism", as it is used by some Wiki editors. Now if you are not one of those people, then I believe you and I can work together without butting heads so much. But for anyone to rely on www.positiveatheism.org in order to argue that the Founders were deists, to me these people are nothing more than undercover atheists, pushing their secular agenda all over Wikipedia. Now that is an "agenda". My "agenda", again, is to simply show that the Founders were God-fearing men and that they believed it was man's duty to pray and live morally and often urged their fellow man to do likewise; I have never stated that these men were card-carrying Christians. These men were spiritual men and, although many of them would not espouse any particular Christian creed, many of them did believe in worshipping God and stated that religion, in general, was essential to morality and would benefit mankind. Yet many of them were anti-Church, that is they were suspicious of organized religion and blamed it for many of the crimes committed during the Dark Ages. Now if I lived during their day, I would have to agree. But that would not make me an atheist, as some undercover atheists in deists clothing would argue. Gaytan 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But I still have to disagree with your analysis on Tindal; you are trying to stuff all prayers into Tindal's view of acceptable prayers by claiming that ALL prayers are acceptable to deists as long as they do not seek to petition an alteration of God's "natural laws." Exactly the opposite is true! Most deists reject most traditional forms of prayer and now you are trying to redefine prayer in order to fit it into the deist definition of an acceptable form of prayer! Defining "natural laws" would enter a whole new discussion, so I won't bother. Now you said yourself, deism is not a religion, it has no established creed. As such, I will no longer bother discussing diesm's view of prayer with someone who will not admit that deism has some sort of regulated belief system or some concrete views. It is pointless. Because of deism's varying and undefined characteristics (according to you), a deist claiming to be very spiritual-minded person can effectively argue their case using deist thought, just as well as an atheist, who claims to be a deist, can argue their case for deism's uninvolved and impersonal God. Deists today have such a wide spectrum of beliefs, I cannot even understand how they can classify themselves together in any way. But good luck to them. I just can't stand when people say that the Founders were non-God-fearing men who acknowledged only a God who basically made a clock (the world and all life) and carelessly left it to tick on its own forever. Thereby leading people to believe that the Founders did not care about God (since He cared not for them), that for them faith is useless, that for them intellect replaces faith, and that for them, everything is man's doing, no thanks to God. This is the atheistic spin on deism. You do not seem to be spinning deism this way, but rather toward a more spiritual outlook with a respectful and grateful view of God. Gaytan 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

JimWae... As a major editor at George Washington and religion I thought you should know that I have started an RFC on the whole "Washington was not a communicant" issue. You may want to toss in your two cents. Blueboar 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln

Sheesh. Thanks for that. How did that crap sneak in there w/o me catching it? The battle never ends... Tomertalk 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

Your recents edits [[10]] do not reflect the current discussions or tags on the talk page. Stop making edits without verifing your sources. I have reverted your edits. Please provide documentation that the sources verfied are not fringe or extremist, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. see WP:SELFPUB --Masterpedia 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • LOC=Library of Congress. Please provide evidence that LOC is fringe or extremist - also you have broken a link --JimWae 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Frustated with Atheism Protection

Jim, I'm new to wiki editing and thus I am pretty green. The atheism talk page is very long and its its been hard to find the most important edits on it. Some of the stuff there needs archiving, for I think it would help draw attention to your contributions. Yesterday was my first read of the atheism article/discussions and much of it was precursory.

I think your contributions are on the right track and it would be great if we could refer to an existing survey of the literature that supports making the 3 distinctions. Without such a reference, it may be best to state only that there are "different accepted definitions of atheism" and then procede to iterate these with examples. Not numbering the different meanings would prevent discussions getting too dogmatic if something slightly different or completely new crops up.

By the way, I earned a BS in CSC at NCSU a long time ago, but then left the computer field because I didn't like being wedded to the machines. Now I can't seem to avoid them again!Modocc 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/m/User_talk%7EJimWae_ce32.html"