User talk:JimWae/Archives/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

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).

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)


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)

Ontology

Regarding sweeping changes made by User:Azamat_Abdoullaev, FYI I have flagged an issue here[[1]]. 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)

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)



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)


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)

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

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)


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)

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)


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)



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)

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)



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)

"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)



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)

Rjensen

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

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)



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)

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)


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)

Of Possible Interest?

http://smithjcn.googlepages.com/time

JCNSmith 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)



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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)



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)


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)


"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)

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)

Hicksville

I thought all trains (Ronkonkoma and Port Jefferson) stopped at Hicksville. ([2]) -- BlastOButter42 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)