User talk:JimWae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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] Question

How can the zip code "not" signify that Forest Park is part of Woodhaven, Queens. Isn't that the purpose of zip codes? Thanks for all your input in this article. Its looking better than ever. Since I have included all of the bus routes, is it possible if you can add hyperlinks to them? I wanted to just tell you that I need to be aware of small typos. I can't seem to clearly see what I am typing because of the small size of the font.

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for helping me with the Zeno article. I'm more enthusiastic then skilled, and I'm grateful that someone else seems to care. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeh, the article needed a drastic cut - have to be cautious about re-adding things. --JimWae (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Series Solution to Zenos Paradox

Why do you keep removing the external link to this article. Regardless of what your personal views are on the matter, both Zeno and Aristotle were mathematicians and the mathematical argument is a valid one. The argument presented on Wikipedia involving the use of time is a flaccid and devoid argument for the problem was not proposed in that dimension. It was proposed with infinitely divisible intervals and the only way to represent infinite intervals is with the concept infinity, divided by the subset of each interval. The proof presented is not historically incorrect, it is not semantically incorrect and it is more relevant then the philosophical debates which are linked to regarding this topic. I can only presume that you have no grounding in calculus or have wish to continue the philosophical debate as a matter of course to add some sense of mystique to Zenos ideas.

If you prefer, I can incorporate the proof into the article with a reference to the proof, if this will satisfy your incessant need to undo edits which are relevant to the matter at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.186.25 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I removed it ONCE as part of other vandalism, the second edit removed the word BLOG from the title for the link. BLOGs are NOT reliable sources. Additionally, nobody can disprove "the existence of the Dichotomy Paradox" - as your "My Philosophy" blog states. So, yes it should be removed entirely from the article, and I will do that soon. If you think the content of the blog includes relevant, reliably-sourced material missing from the article, then by all means add it --JimWae (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Btw, as the article points out, while being able to derive a mathematical sum is an achievement, it is not at all clear that doing so nullifies Zeno's argument. If it were that simple, then saying "Nevertheless, Achilles DOES catch the tortoise" would nullify his argument with much less need of math. That is why we call them paradoxes of motion and not disproofs of motion. Btw, I have taught calculus. --JimWae (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Why are there other blogs included in there with philosophical discussions of Zenos paradox if they are not reliable sources. You are showing your own bias as your previous reverts on other peoples edits have shown. Why are you not picking up on things like the fact that electrons don't jump quanta, they are located in a probability cloud, therefore not discreet. I have a mind to flag this article as bias based on the fact that the mathematical solution that has been shown is in fact two centuries old. Even in quantum mechanics the subatomic particles are in motion. They are not static. Motion is inherent in these particles so the the argument that we cannot predict motion at the quantum level because of the uncertainty principle does not lend any credibility to the fact that Zeno's conjecture is that we cannot move in the first place.

To settle the argument, I will reproduce the series proof with a link to the original and then it can be left up to philosophical debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamoz Shah (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • See WP:SPS, stop making this a personal, emotional issue (I did not even delete the link last time) - and consider creating an account and please sign your comments with 4 of these tildas ~ --JimWae (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • and again: we call them paradoxes of motion and not disproofs of motion.--JimWae (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are attributing bias to me and you do not even have your facts straight about the editing history of this article --JimWae (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Mathematical solutions were devised about 2000 years ago, not 200 - please read the paradox article --JimWae (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • a proposed solution using mathematical series notation is already contained in the article. do you find anthing missing fom it? --JimWae (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright, let's start again.
    • WP:SPS applies to materials which are sourced. The particular method I am proposing has been published by others. I am merely reproducing it as I have not seen it done anywhere else.
    • I may have my facts wrong, but we both have bias along opposite ends of the spectrum here. You're approaching from a purely philosophical standpoint and I'm approaching from a purely mathematical one. The reality is somewhere in the middle.
    • This particular solution is calculus based which originated in the 1900s.
    • The proposed solution is inaccurate because of the factors involved. Firstly it adds time to the paradox where time was not originally a factor. Secondly, it says that infinite divisions of a distance can be summed in infinite time, yet we do not know if the universe is an open or closed interval. The method that I have used to sum the series works for both open and closed intervals leaving the semantic problem of whether such an interval can be summed. Shamoz Shah (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have reworded the solution to make clear my meaning behind it. Check to see if it agrees with you. I think we are roughly on the same page.Shamoz Shah (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[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] 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)


It's not that I disagree with you, the 'units of measure' part of Canadian English has almost nothing to do with language, I'm at least as guilty as anybody else, it's just that in Canadian supermarkets you buy fruits and vegtables by the pound(with the metric price in smaller print). You may often find 450 gr of butter instead of 454 gr, but it's almost impossible to find 500 gr or 400, and cans of pop are 355 ml not 350 or 400 or 300. Often high grade carton juices are 961ml instead of 1L, etc. et et naseaum. At fastfood restaurants cups are measured in ounces(and people talk of 16oz drinks and 21oz drinks, and people - young and old - talk largely of pounds of butter or apples or bananas when talking about their grocery bills, although 20 somethings will usually talk of 355 cans of pop or concentrated juice). if there is a units of measure section and it talks about food, some of these things should be mentioned(again not disagreeing with your explanations of your edits, and if a units of measure section can not be made to talk mostly about language I'm not opposed to scrapping it) Jethro 82 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (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] 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] 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)

[edit] Talk:Canada

The number of asterisks before a comment is meant as a way of threading the discussion; the degree of indentation indicates what is being replied to. Putting a different type of bullet before my comments doesn't "separate authors"; it misrepresents what comment I'm replying to. Anything other than a single asterisk makes it look as though I'm replying to you, rather than the reality that we were both replying to Don in close succession. The signature at the end of a comment is what keeps one editor's comments distinguished from another; the indentation at the beginning indicates which prior comment I'm replying to. Bearcat 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • that's ONE way of looking at indentation. Another is that I was using *s & you were using :s. Yet another is that level of indentation indicates who is speaking

- some discussions have no indents at all

  • The signature does not come until the end and putting *s under *s without an extra line feed makes it look like separate points all in one reply --- I do really not care - as long as it is not the way described in this point
  • There was an edit conflict & then an intervening edit I did not even see, so to me indenting with a big extra line feed was preferable to all in one
  • Anyway, no need to battle each other when we agree on the content issue --JimWae 07:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Population clock. The automatic update wasn't always that accurate. But have it your way if it means that much to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.198.87 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is EXACTLY accurate (in terms of co-inciding with the Canada population clock) once a day at precisely 00:00 UTC - rounded off to the nearest hundred. If you do not round off, it would be accurate for only a few seconds --JimWae (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaminade High School

Collin Finnerty is a notable alumnus of Chaminde High School in Mineola, NY.

Please do not edit his name out.

-- unsigned comment by new user Special:Contributions/Alexcavaluzzo

See Talk:Chaminade High School --JimWae 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That edit to Secession

It's just another Confederate apologist; specifically, taking the Confederate stance that the United States was a voluntary association, and that when the secessionists pulled out, there was no longer a valid "United States" against which they were rebelling, just a gang of old ex-partners unwilling to let them go. --Orange Mike 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kilogram article

Please see Kilogram talk. That paragraph you’re defending is still all wrong. Greg L (my talk) 21:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni list on Chaminade High School

I did an alpha sort because it makes it quicker for those who learn of a prominent alumnus, but don't know his year, to insert him into the list. Most such lists are organized that way; a few are first divided by reason for notability, then alpha-sorted.--Orange Mike 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See reply at Talk:Chaminade High School--JimWae 06:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The chap is Don Murphy and he strongly objects to his article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination). While the article will likely remain given his objection and that his notability is as a film producer it feels like a good idea to not have the school he went to, which has nothing to do with his notability, recording the fact. Its a highly problematic article and the guy is very pissed off with wikipedia. Hope this helps and am willing to discuss further, SqueakBox 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Era again

JimWae, Christian Religious Ideology does not constitute a Neutral point of view! You have been reported to the Administrator Edison. I will continue to revert your edits where you are using Christian Ideology in replace of historical fact. If you want B.C to mean before Christ and A.D. to mean after death, than I suggest you add these comments to the Christianity page and leave them there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanitrix (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi JimWae,
You modified the BCE-CE article with edit comment "chronologically equivalent - if they were "equivalent" there's be no difference at all". I'm afraid you do not grasp the meaning of 'equivalent'. It is not a synonym for 'identical' or 'equal', but it means literally 'of equal value', which implies there must be a difference. Your rephrasing as "alternative names for" is not WP:NPOV because it rather suggests that BCE-CE are alternatives for what then must be the real thing, BC-AD. You had also re-introduced the year zero of ISO 8601. That would require a very good source. To which year would that correspond? As far as I know, that iso standard does not set some new calendar, but only defines date formatting, mainly to overcome the 06/02/2007 problem for Americans being June and for Europeans Februari, and making it easier to sort dates by consequently going from longest period on the left to shortest period on the right. There may be a notation as 0000-00-00 for an unknown or unspecified year-month-date, but no time in history was iso's year 0. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 05:27 (UTC)

  • I am & was aware that equivalent has a technical meaning in mathematics, though I had temporarily not considered it. I am not convinced that the technical mathematical meaning is the one true English meaning that all must or will recognize. It is not enough to say without qualification that they are equivalent. Further, saying "the sets of abbreviations are equivalent" appears to be jargonese. I cannot immediately think of any other abbreviations within the same language that would be candidates for equivalency - though perhaps you have one in mind. Abbreviations are not mathematical expressions and I think these are not equivalent abbreviations anyway, as they evaluate to different words entirely. (Btw, Saying "Kid is an alternative term for child" does not imply either is more real.) I have, however, not reverted to my edit, but instead (several hours before your note above?) revised to use the term "correspond" for the abbreviations - which I think can apply both to mathematical expressions & linguistic ones - since it is a term applied to sets in general. Cheers --JimWae 05:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Equivalent sets have the same number of elements - I am not sure that is what needs to be said in this article --JimWae 06:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As for ISO & year zero, I once took your position. While the standard never stipulates a year zero, following research I was convinced (by others, despite my reluctance) that it is implied. Year 3 BCE becomes year -2, implying that 1 BCE was year -0 --JimWae 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • see page 27 of http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ISO_8601_2004_E.zip?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199 ISO 8601:2004(E) from ISO (zip-pdf, 228KB) --JimWae 06:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The equivalent sets have nothing to do with mathematics (rather the use of these terms in mathematics follows more or less the normal usage in English). I'm sure you can recognize "equivalent" to contain the same token as "equal", "equilibrium", etc. I think it's from the Latin for even/equal. And "valent" is like "value", "valence" etc. The compound term never means two things being identical, but two different things having a same worth, or can be used for the same purpose. In normal usage, it does not necessarily imply having a same number of elements (at least not in case counting or distributing are not an issue). Any other usage of the term in English is just as wrong as it is in any other language (many have a corresponding term that looks quite like it).
    The use of "set" is the normal English usage of consisting of things that go with each other, should not be mixed with the items from another set. That is what the article had not clearly enough mentioned in the lead section earlier: if one uses CE, one must also use BCE if such early date occurs; if one uses AD, the early date must have BC. One should never mix e.g. BCE and AD in a same text. But I must ask you never to use double quotes if you rephrase something, and most certainly not if you criticize the quote. I never put "the sets of abbreviations are equivalent" in the article. It stated: "The set of abbreviations CE and BCE, are taken as an equivalent to the set formed by AD, anno Domini (or Anno Domini), and BC, Before Christ, respectively."
  • You again modified the article, this time with edit comment "set of abbreviations are equivalent" is jargonese - starts to make article appear to be about the abbreviations". Starts? What do you think came first? Why do you think there are three versions of what CE-BCE would stand for? The idea had simply been to replace BC and AD that too clearly referred to a Christian Lord. Because AD is not normally used, we assume a year to be AD if no abbreviation or 'in the year of the Lord' is present, the practical change would simply be adding an "E" from Era (obvious, isn't it) to the "BC" and then one had to come up with something that would no longer say 'Christ' but of course by holding on to the preexisting BC the interpretation as Before Christ was easy. As "B" stood for 'before', and '"E" for era, consequently one can use the same notation without the "B" to replace an "AD" notation, but one counted on that not being necessary very often. In fact, for 'normal' years expressed with the "AD" properly in front of the year (following the Latin e.g. 'anno Domini MLXVI' for the Battle of Hastings), one has to move the abbreviation to the end, as one cannot rightly say 'in the year of the Common Era 1066' but must say 'in the year 1066 of the Common Era', hence in short 1066 CE. Thus in practice, you will find only very few occurrences of the CE. I even assume that most introductions of AD were done more to deliberately and devotely refer to the Lord, rather than to disambiguate between years more than a thousand years apart when "AD" became first introduced. And apart from texts about the date notation, so far I did not yet read a text with a year number and fully written-out name like Common Era. But obviously, as 'Common Era' is the common part of CE and BCE, that had to be the name of the 'new' notation system. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 06:57 (UTC)
This next paragraph with my initial line of thought on iso-8601 is incorrect. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 21:44 (UTC)
  • You misinterpret the iso (it might have been clearer in that table though):
−00020412 −0002-04-12 Expanded; four digits to represent the year. The twelfth of April in the second year before the year [0000]
The table shows negative dates (iso does not use BC[E]), thus allowing calculations for which one has to count from 0 for -0002 to correspond to 2 BC[E]. Or from 0 for [+]0002 to correspond to AD 2 CE. -0001 is 1 BC[E], +0001 is AD 1 CE. Hence, it does not mean there actually was a year 0, when would that have been? You should rather interpret is as the infinitely small moment 0.
I do not think we can assume any year, not even year 0, is but a moment. Look here too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ISO_8601#Before_0001 --JimWae 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Your phrase '(Btw, Saying "Kid is an alternative term for child" does not imply either is more real.)' inserted at 06:26 in the section with time stamp 05:59, is pure demagogy: the person we call a kid is as real as the (possibly identical person) we call a child; the year we call 1066 CE is as real as the (certainly identical) year we call AD 1066. But the term "kid" is not the real, the equally proper and generally applicable term for a young person, as the term "child" is. Thus stating that 'BCE-BC are alternative terms for BC-AD' does indeed suggest the latter to be the proper terms and the first something that should only be used under certain circumstances. The term kid is definitely not equivalent to to term child. The set of terms BCE-CE are equivalent to the set of terms terms BC-AD.
Hereunder my initial line of thought on iso-8601; but see also underneath this greyed-out text. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 17:27 (UTC)
The Wikipedia chatbox section of the talk page your latest comment goes to, comes to a hoax conclusion by picking and citing quotes out of context and personally building on such. E.g. I quote Joe Kreiss who finally quotes, '"Consecutive calendar years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers." (3.2.1) This means the years before [0001] must be sequential, specifically [-0001], [0000], [0001]. A jump from [-0001] to [0001] is not permitted.' In fact, the full quote from the iso specification is this:
3.2.1 The Gregorian calendar
This International Standard uses the Gregorian calendar for the identification of calendar days. This calendar provides a time scale consisting of a, potentially infinite, series of contiguous calendar years. Consecutive calendar years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers.
That says "This International Standard uses the Gregorian calendar (...). This calendar provides a time scale consisting of (...) contiguous calendar years." Notice that it never calls the iso standard 'a calendar', thus "This calendar" can only refer to "the Gregorian calendar" that preceeds it in the sentence and that is the title of the section starting with that sentence. And of only that Gregorian calendar is said that its years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers. Unless you can find a decent source that gives the Gregorian calendar a year 0 that lasted for twelve months, there is not going to be one in the iso standard either.
The hoax is only further fed by starting to talk of "a year 0" as you do in denying that "any year, not even year 0, is but a moment", as if there would really be "a year 0".
The iso never talks about "a year 0" but tries to mention in the little space available in the in my earlier comment cited table, that one should work from year [0000]. It does not explicitly say that such is a fictional 'year', in fact a mere representation to arrive at the iso standard representation of years, because it must have appeared all too obvious for people clearly setting a standard to represent dates and times, who were never trying to create a new calendar and did not foresee the wild assumptions on a WP talk page; the iso drafters are used to set out dry rules for people without a galloping fantasy. It just means, when we represent years, we do so by adding the number of the year at hand to the year representation '0000', and signing the representation according to the year at hand being one before the start moment of the Gregorian calendar or one after that moment, thus '0000' + 376 gives the required 4-digit absolute value '0376' which becomes '-0376' for a year BC[E] or '[+]0376' for one AD/CE.
— SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 13:20–13:50 (UTC)
(Temporary note: will follow up in a moment, food's on the table) — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 17:27 (UTC)
  • The iso gives no specific guidelines on how to deal with years before [0001] - but makes a multitude of references to the year [0000]. Nowhere does it say the year [0000] is a momentary fiction. Please reconsider your statment that I am denying a statement I neither made nor discussed in that logical form. You will need more support before you can so assuredly call this a hoax
  • Article content should be discussed on article talk pages - not on a user talk page --JimWae 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Final note: As this user suddenly could not wait a few minutes after my I having shown a very clear intention to clarify a few things, and now goes on at the above tone and is not interested in a further discussion here, there is no point in my spending more time at this. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 17:45 (UTC)
  • I was preparing the above AS you made your entry. Article content discussions are not very productive as 2-person messages, and I wanted to encourage you to continue to talk in the article talk pages - unless of course you are prepared to abandon your position. Strangely, I detect far more "tone" coming from your end. Your demagoguery attribution to me (on a user talk page, no less) is indicative of something more than concern with content, no?--JimWae 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is all rather sad that we are fighting already - and I had made a special effort early on to not be overly-critical. Ironically, I think we are both supporters of usage of CE, no? Was it my reciprocated use of "should"?--JimWae 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon saving after a new entry had been saved, you might have read that entry before saving across the edit conflict you should then have noticed. I had just wanted to replace the word "clarify" in my 'final note' into "thoroughly reconsider" (as you will have guessed by my retracting the entire long paragraph on the iso 8601 year standard). Your tone after this and my introduction of the 'temporary note', was then pedantic and your sending me towards the public talk page as soon as you see you're going to be victorious, while you start your talk page with "If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. (...) If appropriate, I will move talk from here to relevant article talk page, so that everyone can share in the discussion." makes your 17:31 remark most uncivil. Hence my tone. After two edit conflicts, I'm now once again trying to save this reply. No hard feelings, I assume the edit conflict you had encountered may not have made very clear what I had done, but it had definitely not appeared that way when I was cutting this off by my the 'final note'. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 18:11 (UTC)
  • To make a long discussion short, 1 BCE is indeed a full year 0000 in the iso 8601 standard. This is shown clearly in e.g.
    [1] (in German), [2].
    Hence I was preparing the links etc when food appeared on the table... You're right about there being a real year 0000. Also by your assumption of my preference for BCE-CE as I do not see the point of coercing a Christian emphasis by terminology onto the entire world, devoted Christians should be happy enough with their belief's basis becoming the 0-point of a worldwide calendar, and by not having to adopt another calendar themselves. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 18:23 (UTC)
  • In the Common Era article, the part introduced by "thus" in the (2nd?) paragraph does not follow from the preceding. Also the part about year zero seems to be becoming the main topic of a sentence, increasing the chance of confusion there. I am going to make some changes. --JimWae 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. The anno Domini is also an unclear terminology: Thai people write in English text about the Lord Buddha. Their date system has at present the year 2550 (though their current New year is on (also) our January 1 while it had been on April 13 a few generations ago). That is the 2550th year after the Enlightenment of the Buddha (allowing the end of the cumbersome series of consecutive lives, the final stage, or his death if you prefer). Thus to Thai people, the year of the Lord would appear to be their traditional year, currently 2550, and not currently 2007 of the Lord Christ. Since at least a decade, both year notations occur simultaneously, for instance some banks' excerpts are in traditional years, other banks print transactions in CE years.
  • 2. About your last remark, I'll have a look. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 18:37 (UTC)

I see you've reverted me & returned to "equivalent". "Corresponds to" is much clearer. Do we have to debate that all over again? --JimWae 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. 'Equivalent' is the most appropriate term, 'corresponds to' is reasonably close. But a lead is not supposed to be a series of paragraphs of one or two short sentences. It is supposed to have two to four paragraphs of some length, with related topics brought together. That made me not revert you but undo the splitting of the paragraph by which you had reverted me. Both our contributions were edits, not reverts. I had indeed maintained your proper reintroduction of iso 8601 and as that prescribes a year format of 4 digits, shown that as well. And I made clear that your earlier statement of "thus" not being proper, and which you had lifted out of the article, had been mistaken. I did so by rephrasing the sentence in a shorter and more readable way that clearly makes the second part of a sentence a consequence of the first part, hence with "thus". And it had required to use the term "correspond" because here it much more explicitly has to mean that BCE corresponds to BC and CE corresponds to AD. Here "equivalent" would be misplaced. I hope you notice the difference. Even for style reasons alone (repetition of 'correspond'), that required to reintroduce "equivalent" where that is the proper term (BCE-CE is equivalent, of a same worth for a same purpose, for BC-AD, where it does not as much needs to explain which term on the left corrsponds to which term on the right, as that is done by the final word, "respectively"). Hence my edit. — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 21:12 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that 2 sets are equivalent?

  • In set language, it means they have the same # of elements - this adds nothing to the article
  • if you mean, as you seem to suggest here in talk (but give no hint in article text) they have some kind of equal value (social? moral?), then that is a POV statement. CE advocates would say it has more value, CE detractors would say less. Please consider my recent edit as a proposed way to avoid all the issues you have raised above--JimWae 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The only thing the lede needs to say about year 0 is that it is not used (in either system) - anything further belongs in main body or in separate article--JimWae 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not commenting here, it went on at the article's talk page. I just saw that an earlier most unfortunate copy/paste-or-so mistake had created a ridiculous and misleading statement, I just inserted "allowing" in my comment mentioning the Enlightenment of the Lord Buddha: the reaching of the highest stage of awareness allowed him (years later in that same life) to reach the end the long series of consecutive lifes that according to his teaching are considered full of unhappiness, suffering. — SomeHuman 14 Sep 2007 00:55 (UTC)

[edit] MLK

Do you think you might take a look at the recent talk on the MLK page? I would be interested to know if you have an opinionDie4Dixie 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion issue again

It doesn't stop. Please help. {See Canada Talk Page) --Soulscanner 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed American Civil War and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention this to you since you are a significant contributor to the page and, if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates & needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Clipboard01.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Clipboard01.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD I6.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. SQL(Query Me!) 13:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond, British Columbia

Hi Jim,

You made an unreferenced addition to the Richmond, British Columbia article, and I wanted to know whether you determined that from a verifiable source or if they are your own observations. For example, from my own observations (despite trying to find verifiable information via the City of Richmond website and Google), City Hall is not the tallest building in Richmond (both of my grandmothers live in Richmond in taller buildings.)

Thanks, Andrewjuren(talk) 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • According to Richmond Review, as of 2005 City Hall was tallest. http://www.yourlibrary.ca/community/richmondreview/archive/RR20050616/news.html When I moved here in 1980, the tallest was the apartment block across Minoru from Richmond Center - it was the ONLY structure above 3 storeys in all of Richmond - except for the airport tower. Things may have changed since 2005, but I am not aware of anything taller than that proposed Buddha statue which was rejected. Storeys alone do not indicate height. How many storeys are you aware of? I think we have a source for as of 2005 anyway & someone can change it if they have another --JimWae 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 8 storeys AND over 45 m, making almost 6 metres per storey - something apartment buildings do not do --JimWae 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you contest that few houses in Richmond have basements? Do we need a source even to say the Earth is round? --JimWae 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jefferson & Berkeley Counties, WV

Dear Jim, you added some info on the Border States re: Jefferson & Berkeley Counties which I don't think is quite accurate. Jefferson & Berkeley were made part of WV in 1863 by the Wheeling Restored Government, and a poll was conducted that year in both counties and those who were allowed to participate voted to join WV. They didn't join after the war, the lawsuit by Virginia to recover those two counties was won by WV in the Supreme Court, which settled it once and for all. It makes it sound like the citizens of those counties had a poll after the war and voted to join WV, which is not at all true. Thanks, Dubyavee 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, then the several other wikipedia articles from which I got that information also need editing --JimWae 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC) -- primarily History_of_West_Virginia - guess we need some refs for any of this now --JimWae 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Part of likely confusion is Emancipation Proclamation which specifies Virginia, but specifically excepts "the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth" (Jefferson not there either) --JimWae 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Dear Jim, 50 has usually been the number quoted for the formation of West Virginia, even the Virginia Historical Society gets it wrong though, they refer to the "50 Unionist Counties", which makes me laugh, they don't even know their own history. Anyway, if you don't mind, in the next few days I will rewrite that section, and put the Jefferson/Berkeley conflict in perspective, with an inline quotation from Fast & Maxwell's "History of West Virginia", which lays it out fairly logically. Wheeling took control of those two counties during the war, appointed officials, conducted polls for the 1864 election and used troops to keep the populace in line. I didn't want to get too detailed, since the article is on the Civil War, so I will keep it as short as possible. Thanks, Dubyavee 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see now my sources do support 50 - but I think for the Civil War article we have to watch out we do not get too specific. Saying 50 is fine in the general article, but any great specificity would be more appropriate in the Border states (Civil War) article - including mention of the Restored government of Virginia (a crucial yet often omitted step in any discussion of the constitutionality) - and of course in the History of West Virginia article --JimWae 04:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I saw your question on the History of WV about the map. I see how it might be confusing, I will go and retitle the map to make it clearer. The map is intended to show the counties of WV which ratified Virginia's Ordinance of Secession, not the counties which voted for separate Statehood. I will retitle the map, thanks.Dubyavee 04:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I eventually figured out what was intended, but the change will reduce future confusion. Btw, do you know where there might be voting results county by county. It would also be interesting to compare each vote - for secession from US, for secession from VA, & final one for statehood --JimWae 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The only book with voting records is Richard Curry's "A House Divided". It's not in print but not that scarce. Dubyavee 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oyster Bay

First off, I'd appreciate it if you were calmer. I am quite aware of policy, and I'm assuming good faith on your part; I'd appreciate if you did likewise.

As far as the move: please see the categories of towns in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin: the eight states that are divided into towns. Unless I missed some, or unless you change some, you'll observe that there's only one other town in all these states with the format "Town of ___, ___": the Town of Rye, New York in Westchester County. Wikipedia is not to be a chaotic place: we establish consensus, including naming conventions. Whether or not your preferred name for Oyster Bay is the best choice, it is an obvious violation of the standard for such names — surely there would be more names like this otherwise. If you want to see these places changed, then take it up somewhere where there's tons of visibility, as such a change will have wide-reaching implications. And don't think that it's just New York towns, or towns in these eight states; I expect that my hometown is named the Village of Belle Center, but we simply have it as Belle Center. Your preferred naming convention will likely require the renaming of every single incorporated community in the United States, so be prepared for the controversy that will come if you follow this path. Nyttend 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • While Town Of Oyster Bay may be a difference from usual practice, it is not a violation of any "standard" (in the sense of policy). What do you hope to achieve by your changes & moves? Are you expecting people to type in xTownNamex (town), XStateNameX in the search box? While this may not be an issue for your village in Ohio, the issue for LIers is that all but one Town name is also the name of a place within that town. People do not say East Hampton meaning to also include Montauk - when they say East Hampton unmodified, they mean the village - not the town -- similarly for the other towns --JimWae 05:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my last reply if you continue to present yourself in this manner. Please write more civilly.
I expect people to go to Oyster Bay just as I expect them to go to Barre, Vermont. When you type that, do you expect a disambiguation page or do you except the city? Admittedly, it's not the most convenient, but that's the way it is in all eight "town" states. Are you going to try to change every single community with this sort of disambiguation? If so, go ahead — but unless you so desire, don't try to have one or two changed. You speak of errors that result (for example, the Oyster Bay disambiguation page) — I do my best to fix wrong links as a result of changes such as this, but I don't see why I must be held responsible for every single wrong link. If you never make mistakes, that's good; but I suspect that you so do. So what? It doesn't matter if you make a good-faith error, especially if you try to fix it once you realise that something's wrong.
By the way, if you put "Oyster Bay, New York" into the Census Bureau's Factfinder, you'll get this page: it's the town. Barre, Vermont is similar to what we'd call a disambiguation page; the city is listed as Barre city, Vermont. This, I expect, is the reason that these articles are named this way: the Census is our source for the names and the basic information, and therefore we entitle our articles likewise by this reliable source. Nyttend 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your recent edit comment on Current Era...

Specifically:

...It's 2006 this year for anyone on Earth that is participating in day-to-day world commerce and communication...

You need to update your calendar. It's currently 2007, and it will soon be 2008... ;) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, guy -- I was quoting from the cited article --JimWae (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of New York

Because you placed the "unbalanced" tag on the History of New York article you are required to indicate on the associated talk page the reasons why you placed this tag on the article so that the issue can be resolved. BradMajors (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit comments I left in the template tag gave the reasons, but I added to the talk page as you wished - but NOT BECAUSE I was REQUIRED to do so --JimWae (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queens

I had to revert back for these reasons, which I briefly explained in the edit summary but will expand on here:

1. "Overlinking?" -- There's tons of overlinking in the article already, so what's the problem?
2. "Solitary years have very low-value as links" -- Please explain why you believe that. There is nothing wrong with linking years.
3. "The former Town is NOT the county seat, Jamaica is" -- No matter which way you slice it, the county seat is still WITHIN the town of Jamaica, even today. Borough Hall and the new State Supreme Court building are both in Kew Gardens, part of the original town as a village ([3]), not to mention the other court buildings which are in downtown Jamaica (the former Village of Jamaica).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking it all down

*1 & 2 [4] [5]
*3 TOWN has a specific meaning in NY - see [6]...There is no longer any Town of Jamaica, so it cannot be the county seat. Just leave it as Jamaica (or Jamaica & nearby areas).

Just the mere mention of this is redundant. And I did use the word former when I re-wrote that Jamaica became "county seat" again post-consolidation. Next...

*4 see the Mineola article - it is in TOH & TONH.

Wrong. Check your maps, because Mineola's southern border is Old Country Road -- the dividing line between the towns of Hempstead (Village of Garden City) and North Hempstead. A technicality: the Nassau County seat is Mineola, but the county buildings are all on the south side of Old Country Road, in Garden City!

*5 why put 1870 between 2 early events about # of towns??

Oversight on my part, the numbers screwed me up.

I also noticed that you may not be from New York. So if you aren't you really have no clue as to what is real around here. That was a professional criticism, so don't take it personally. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see you have now considered what I have pointed out & made some appropriate changes. Please have the courtesy in future to consider changes made before blindly reverting to a version you had made - which had numerous problems.

  • Note that when I changed the location of Mineola to "now a village in Nassau County", the article had previously (only & probably erroneously) stated Mineola was in Town of Hempstead. The Mineola article still says it is in 2 towns, (I have made corrections to the town articles) - However, I never ever sought to include that (its being in 2 towns) in the article. I think it would be more meaningful to those not from LI to point out that Mineola is now in a different county & that this point could easily be overlooked if the emphasis is on what town it was in.
  • Regarding your linking of solitary years
    • from Overlinking#Overlinking
      Overlinking in a webpage or another hyperlinked text is the characteristic of having too many hyperlinks.[1][2] It is characterized by:... Links that have little information content, such as linking on specific years like 1995, or unnecessary linking of common words used in the common way, for which the reader can be expected to understand the word's full meaning in context, without any hyperlink help.
    • date links are so that user preferences will work. From WP:Date#Autoformatting and linking:
      Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users.... Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.
    • Surely you cannot mean that every year link deepens the user's understanding about Queens.
  • Btw, Mineola (ToNH) is the county seat even tho' many county offices are in Garden City (in ToH). Jamaica became county seat again in 1898 even though some of its offices are now (but likely NOT in 1898) in Kew Gardens.
  • I assure you that you are completely wrong about what you think you have "noticed". You will find I have made significant contributions to many, many article about "Greater" Long Island, NYC, & NY. It is also rather inhospitable for you to suggest that people who are "from" a place have any privilege to drive away those who are not "from" a place. I have also lived in places far from LI, and from that perspective it is clear that saying the former county seat is no longer in that county is more meaningful than what town it was in (with the reader having to figure out that that same town is no longer in that county). It is the residents of LI who most likely to be confused about which places are in which towns. Outsiders couldn't care enough to get confused about it --JimWae (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


On the other hand EB Online http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052827/Mineola says Mineola is in 2 towns - of course it also gives the wrong date for its being county seat --JimWae (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the Post Office issue --JimWae (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"About 1 out of every 20 places with a Mineola mailing address are not in Mineola. These places that have a Mineola mailing address but are not in Mineola are in the Village of Garden City in the Town of Hempstead, and at the same time, there are places in the Village of Mineola with a Williston Park or a Carle Place mailing address." http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NYNASSAU/2004-08/1093051529

Looks like ToH has at least one building in "Mineola" too - http://toh.li/content/rc/museums/loc_mineola.html#nassaupolice --JimWae (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied here because user deleted it from his talk page

  • I have added 5 or 6 references to the article that demonstrate clearly that not all of Queens County got to vote on consolidation - the above "history" can only be described (without tending to invective) as "inventive". No part of present Nassau County ever even voted on consolidation.
  • Regarding "coterminous", you changed the fact regarding the date upon which it happened. It did not happen "with consolidation" in 1898, it did not happen UNTIL Nassau County was formed in 1899. THe fact that you still do not understand this, makes me doubt you have read anything I wrote, and indicates the level of frustration I have had to endure in communicating with you --JimWae (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have spent far too much time on this already, but I will sign off with one last remark - it is extremely contrary to co-operative work for you to repeatedly remove requests for citation. Your version of the history on consolidation was never sourced & now the sources show your version to be almost entirely in error. Removing requests for citation are not "minor" edits, as so many of yours were marked - they are extremely significant edits - moreso than many content edits. It is extremely insulting to other editors to so blithely remove them. --JimWae (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While all this was going on, your responses to me were almost entirely directed at me personally, rather than the issues. I probably did go a bit overboard by placing so many tags -- I regret that, but they all did apply & frankly I was running out of ways to get you to respond to what I was actually saying. You tell me how you would have handled someone putting unsourced error in the article, deleting all requests for citations (and also requests for a 3rd opinion and accuracy tags), and responding almost entirely with either personal attacks or by being completely dismissive --JimWae (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the relevant section of the MoS WP:Citing sources#Where to place ref tags

Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS)....

--JimWae (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "vandalism"

I have been with Wikipedia since 2006, check my contribs. I think you are unqualified to decide what exactly constitutes Jesus Christ within Wikipedia. My image is perfectly acceptable as historical fact, please refrain from calling me a vandal as this is defamation of my character. (WP:NPA). Thanks! --Zcflint05 (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, Zach - not an toilet wall nor an art museum --JimWae (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, Jim. I have been helping build this encyclopedia since 2006. Please do not treat me as an unexperienced editor or a child. I suggest you review our NPOV policy before further enforcing your point-of-view on Wikipedia pages as you have been doing at Jesus. Thanks! --Zcflint05 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Leave me alone"?

Your attempt to bully me is not going to work. I have deleted all of those templates you added to my page, and should you continue to harrass me I will seek admin assistance. BTW, the next time you leave a comment on my talk page -- which I strongly discourage from this point on -- please sign it and be accountable. Rollosmokes (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoS

Wow, I must have misread the MoS a couple of months back—you're the first editor to correct me. Thanks for pointing it out. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, has this changed in the past couple of months, or has it always being like that? Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best I can do

This got removed from the atheist talk page. I wanted to make sure you saw it. No the quote does NOT conclude that religion is necessary for morality. The quote says religion is an "aid" to morality. From what I have learned from my own limited curiousity and experience all human wisdom, whether in ethics, religion, science, mathematics, etc. is subject to fallibility and modification.

When I was a child the milky way was the only galaxy, the United States Government stereotyped the Japanese soldier as being less than human, radium was hand painted on the numbers and hands of watches, there was negro satire in children's cartoons and high school minstrel shows, the pin-up girl was socially accepted, the baby Jesus was drawn in colored chalk on blackboards in U.S. public schools at Christmas time, what today is known as an affair was known as adultery, you crouched beneath your school desk to avoid being vaporized by an atomic bomb, only hillbillies sang and played guitars, Catholics worshipped statues, the South was segregated for blacks and whites, free cartons of cigarettes were sent to wounded soldiers in hospitals, there was no such thing as a supermarket, shops and stores closed on Sunday, on wednesday nights women were given dinnerware in movie theatres, horses still pulled ice wagons in major cities, cancer victims were on their backs in iron lungs, and convicted criminals were hanged and electrocuted. That's the best I can do.Kazuba (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your help.

  • I am not sure what to respond to, but I am glad things worked out OK. Whether religion is NECESSARY for morality is a persistent topic - and seems to be what the Durants were considering in their (fuller, yet still incomplete) quote. It is unclear from the quote whether they ever attempt to give an answer, but from even the extended quote, the suggestion seems to be that it IS. T. Jefferson, eg, seemed to agree with Washington & publicly supported Xty, even though he was very much at odds with its churches --JimWae (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OldStyle Dates

I don't understand your change to Benedict Arnold: the difference is 11 days, not a year. Tedickey (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In Old Style, the year number did not change on Jan 1 - it changed on Mar 25 - so from Jan 1 to Mar 20 it was still the "old" year. It would be neat if the template could detect that too - but it also Breaks date preferences as it now exists - at least MY date preferences of YYYY-MMMM-DD --JimWae (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington

Exactly which citation edits are you talking about? My referencing to the MOS was for the images, and I'm not sorry if I did not state that as well as I should have. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I got the two confused. I'm not one for excuses, but it was later at night for me and I'm sorry. Haha - nothing there was per the MOS. I was aligning the images, and making the ref format into horizontal rather than vertical. If you and other editors prefer vertical, please keep it. Again, my appologies for my stupidity and confusion. --Happyme22 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration on Dominion issue

I've made an arbitration case on the nagging Dominion issue on Canada and related pages. There might be a need for you to comment. Thanks. --Soulscanner (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Care to go to the mediation request page for Dominion? Could us someone to support the request. Maybe this will work. --soulscanner (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Kennedy assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have reviewed John F. Kennedy assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Quizimodo (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo. -- soulscanner (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of Hindus

JimWae, as you have major contribution in the Religion in the United States article, so I have come here to you with a request. This is about the section Persecution_of_Hindus#United_States in the article Persecution of Hindus. I think the article has several POV concerns. The "United States" section in the article tells:

“ The rise of the Indian American community in the United States has brought about some isolated incidents of attacks on them, as has been the case with many minority groups in the United States. Attacks directed specifically against Hindus in the United States stem from what is often referred to as the "racialization of religion" among Americans, a process that begins when certain phenotypical features associated with a group and attached to race in popular discourse become associated with a particular religion or religions. ”

I think the entire paragraph suffers from WP:UNDUE. The entire paragraph is based on the opinion of Khyati Joshi. I have google searched many times to know about this person and found that she is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education of Fairleigh Dickinson University. But she is not notable person[7]. Especially in an article, which depicts religious persecution, why so much importance is given only in one person? Any person can hypothesise anything, can give any opinion, can write a research paper on his/her opinion, but why that is given too much importance in this article about a country? The theory presented in this paragraph, i.e. "racialization of religion" in the context of United States seems bit confusing to me, seems not to be notable theory. Google books give only 28 hits [8], and many of them are not in US context. Writing an entire paragraph like this based on one person's (who is not notable) opinion seems like WP:UNDUE, I think the paragraph should be deleted per WP:UNDUE. Could you please investigate the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, the use of "often referred to as..." is not justified. Instead, "has been referred to by one writer as..." The editor does seem too quick to adopt the author's view. As for the entire paragraph, itself, it is pretty short & the USA should be covered if there is persecution there. Incidents are mentioned - but not supported. It is also not persecution in any official sense, but by by self-appointed hooligans --JimWae (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Irreligion

Hello JimWae. Can you please explain me about the changes you made at Template:Irreligion? Now, thanks to you, we must also include UFO religions like Raëlism in the template because it is a non-theist religion. And, how can you make comments like 'irreligion is not neutral, it carries a strong negative connotation'? I respect you views; however, please stop making such comments. I am an irreligious person and I have used that label for years. Please change the name to irreligion. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name. If you disagree, feel free to discuss. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't wait long- AND you removed Bright's movement. Whatever label you might feel comfortable with is not necessarily an indication of how a word is actually used in the world. As I have outlined on the appropriate talk page, the term irreligion has more negative connotations than neutral ones. I WILL continue to make such comments - on the talk page for the article - where I HAVE felt free to continue the discussion & have waited already 5 times longer than you did AND have been discussing this recently since Jan 16 & previously since Sep 9 (one day after the creation of the template). --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have waited longer than I did. However, I didn't removed Bright's movement. Yes, you are right— the term irreligion has more negative connotations than neutral ones. In fact, I have removed 'irreligion' from my user page because it might offend some users. Irreligion is viewed as hostile to religion and it will offend religious people. What about Nonreligion? I also think that the name of the article Irreligion should be changed to Nonreligion. I would like to know your views. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Csa5-3.gif

Another editor reverted your correction of the image. I'm reverting it back to the one you posted from the archive. This way I don't have to delete the whole image from the CSA article as being inaccurate. Red Harvest (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of Jesus

If you want to add tags that say "see talk page", you need to open a topic on the talk page, explaining in detail the concern you think should be discussed. Will you do that? Tb (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bethpage Purchase

I've been travelling and just had a chance to check out the Bethpage Purchase page. I think it's terrific. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.I had been thinking for a while that it needed it's own page, you beat me to it though. I'll take a closer look at it in the next few days. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Bethpage Purchase

Updated DYK query On 18 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bethpage Purchase, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space

With all due respect. This isn't a 'can considered to be' this is an 'is'. The shape of space depends on the local gravity field. There's no fabric (so far as anyone knows anyway), but the shape is curved, and this isn't a matter of 'consideration', GR has very good experimental support, and that's what it predicts. GR is part of the standard model of physics.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agnosticism

Hello JimWae. How are you? Some people are including the views of Joseph Ratzinger in the article agnosticism. I strongly oppose that. Please help me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The agnosticism article needs to deal with points raised against agnosticism. Wiki guidelines state this ought to be done throughout the article, rather than all in one section (in this case, a section named Ratzinger). See the atheism article for an example of how to deal with criticisms throughout. Some of the criticisms are the same for both. The agnosticism article also needs more historical origins context, especially needing to deal with Kant & how Kant changed how people understood any claim to know anything metaphysical - including any deities. None of Ratzinger's criticisms are original with him, and attributing them to him is both an appeal to authority and grandstanding. Much of what is in the Ratzinger stuff is unsourced synthesis that is published only on blog-sites. I suspect much of it is a misinterpretation of Ratzinger. Ratzinger's essays are about relativism - which he attributes to certain people influenced by Kant. While R is aware of the importance of Kant, and while he attacks Kant's conclusions (without attacking his arguments), it appears R does not realize just how much he himself agrees with Kant. R does not understand the difference between philosophy & science, he misrepresents Kant and agnosticism, then the blog sites misrepresent R (see http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/ratzinger.htm for a non-blog source), then the blog content gets copied to wikipedia --JimWae (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, noting this and your contributions to Christianity, among others, I wonder if you could have a look at Cafeteria Christianity. It looks to me like a bit of a POV mess, and yet I can't quite put a finger on what's wrong with it - I have flagged the Papal quotes as original research (since they do not refer to the phrase, but may be said to refer to the concept). It would be useful to have another perspective on this. Any thoughts? --Rbreen (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space

Hi Jim,

When you get a moment it would be great to have your response to my comments here. Thanks Andeggs (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More fun on dominion page

I took up your point on pre-1907 usage with an etymology section and altering the lead to reflect this usage. Please comment, if you have time. --soulscanner (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Ratzinger at Truth

Thanks Jim for asking for the quotes. I have placed them at the talk page for you. Marax (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)