NOTHING

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

US KIA needed to "accomplish the mission": 139

US KIA since May 1, 2003: 3,389

Handy hint: to keep discussions in one place, if you leave a talk message I'll answer it here, though I may put a note on your page if getting your attention seems important. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.

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

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you speak Portuguese. I wonder if you could help me with a quick translation? The text is at User:Sannse/Sandbox. Many thanks for any help you can give -- sannse (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I'm really sorry - I edited my sandbox while logged out to add the text I needed in Portuguese. Someone thought it was vandalism and reverted to some old random text I had there. It's the very short letter that I need help with, and not the stuff about dogs. I'm really sorry for the confusion and what must have seemed like a horribly big request! Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's just great -- sannse (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...And never apologize for fixing my grammar, typing or spelling! I appreciate the assist! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for the beautiful barnstar, just the thing for my user page William M. Connolley 12:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been giving this a fair amount of thought. Because of your efforts on wizard, I wanted to see if I could find an award for you. You came in, and were friendly, encyclopedic, and giving of yourself as a resource. No matter what the final outcome is (if there ever is one), I feel that due to all of these actions, and more, that you deserve a barnstar. I've read your home page and talk page, and while I find that we disagree on several points (even on something as the serial comma), that has nothing to do with how deserving you are of this award. (And in truth, after reading your talk page, I am further convinced...)

By the way, your actions that led me to look to find out how Barnstars "worked", has led me to award another deserving person : )

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. Jc37 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was great to meet you in Philly, sorry it was so short. I spent most of the week chasing my own tail. I'm back in the UK with jetlag now. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I agree with you, my edit was a bit of a mess up. I was a bit late on rv-ing this edit by User:24.41.61.18, and since User:FeloniousMonk beat me to it, I ended up rv-ing him (her?) by mistake instead of the ip... Then User:Silence came along and fixed my foul up before I could! :)... The perils of a modem connection! :) Mikker ^(...) 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the message & for checking up on me! :-) Mikker ^(...) 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar - Awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. - Jc37 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

		The Evolution Award
		The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Jim62sch for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Orrabest, dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? ..dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gravity - it's just a theory" – see 'Bruce blew my cover' :) .. dave souza, talk 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, he's 87?????? •Jim62sch• 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very dfficult to praise myself, so I'll just have to hope that the... rather surprising levels of support will outweigh the opposes for "not taking it seriously enough". It's one of those things: I suppose I could do it if I had to, but I hate doing it so much that when I'm not even sure I need the powers, beyond a desire to be able to help a bit more with vandalism and disputes, it's hard to force the effort. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, well, if that's the worst that comes out about me, I'll probably consider it a fairly surprising success - I was rather worried someone would start talking about how awful I was. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, you are awful! Just thought Jim would like to see this pic while stocks last, and you both might like to note that news of it has reached this side of the pond..[1] [2]. Some of the comments struck me as quite amusing. .. dave souza, talk 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia's not a parody? What is it, a parody of a parody? It's bloody hysterical. And dinosaur, as we know, is from bloody Greek, not Latin (somehow lacerta terribilis just doesn't sing). And why if Jesus riding a dinosaur? ROFL. •Jim62sch• 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pic, eh? Came across it at TMW 1:50 PM February 26, 2007, which includes a cite from one of their impressive sources. They've updated the page to remove the pic, but left in the Latin. That good old-fashioned education, eh no? .... dave souza, talk 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no child left behind: of course their dim parents are a whole other issue. •Jim62sch• 15:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that catch phrase. Every time it comes up, my mental translation of it into Scots is "every bairn a right arse"..... :) .....dave souza, talk 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, you're close. The kids spend 2 to 3 months of every 10 studying for standardised tests, the results of which only prove how well they can study for standardised tests. •Jim62sch• 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sounds horribly similar to the SAT tests schools here are plagued by. Am sore tempted to point out the British / Scottish idioms above, but knowing your linguistic skills will head for bed. Night night, .. dave souza, talk 00:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is far too polite to mention things like "Stupid Ass Test".  :) •Jim62sch• 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Latin request

I found this as a contemporaneous caption on a painting of Elizabeth I, used for her article, and would like a translation from Latin please,

Diva Elizabetha, virgo invictissima, semper augusta, plus quam Caesarea Angliae, Francia, et Hiberna potentisima Imperatrix, Fidei Christianae Fortissima Propugnatrix, Literarum omnium scientissima fautrix, Immensi Oceani Faelicissima triumphatrix, Collegi Iesu Oxon. Fundatrix.

My Latin skills have been rusting for several decades, and although I get the gist, I'd like to see a good translation. Do not know whether this an appropriate avenue to make such a request, as I failed to find directions on the page I accessed regarding translations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83d40m (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Response left on user's page. •Jim62sch• 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Do you want a credit for the translation if I insert it into the article? 83d40m 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you -- whichever works best for the article is fine by me. •Jim62sch• 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,

Upon further review, Jim, it would appear that you are essentially wrong about my removal of material from my own user talk page -- it is not prohibited or frowned upon. Please review the last sentence of Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space.

On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.

Of course, that doesn't mean you are free to express your displeasure with it. --Otheus 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had you removed it completely (meaning the whole conversation was archived), I wouldn't care, but in removing part of a comment you altered what the person was trying to say, and therein lies the problem I have with what you did (I was pretty clear about that from the get go). This isn't the Bush Administration where unwanted criticism just goes *poof*. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology. On my talk page I said here:

I can no longer take your advice in good faith. Please STOP commenting on this matter. If we are to have a fight, let it be over something substantive and meaningful.

I'm sorry. I realized that you have good advice to offer, and I should have assumed more good faith. Also, my last statement implies that your feedback was not over something substantive or meaningful, and that was wrong on my part. I humbly offer my apology on both counts. --Otheus 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more note. I have just come across FM's filling for checkuser on me Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Otheus. Now his reactions make a lot more sense. The only question is, will he be satsified with the results and how will we move on? --Otheus 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When researching George Vithoulkas I came across this bunch of links which seemed to be rather up your street, for example this one. For some strange reason expressed at Talk:George Vithoulkas#Removed criticism Mr. V's fans don't seem to appreciate this chap's views. All entertaining stuff. :) ... dave souza, talk 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one link sounds remarkably like my own theory of the genesis of religion. Small meteorite hits earth, big flash and boom, people knocked dowm, trees flattened, someone must have thrown it, that someone must be big, that someone must be a ... god. In other words, humans have an innate need to explain things and events, and if they don't know the actual exlanation, they make one up based on their knowledge-pool and experience.

I was at a funeral the other day...folks leaving artefacts in the coffin with the body -- just like or ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. A priest with holy water. The whole ritual of sacred words and promises based on prevailing beliefs. Things sure haven't changed much. •Jim62sch• 12:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think homeopathy is bunk. •Jim62sch• 12:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which may be why the true believers get so upset about a sceptical view being added to the article, and this reaction: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Campbell. Me, dunno if he's notable – yet. ... dave souza, talk 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He may not be...but, I agree, let's give it some time. Sheesh, some of these editors are nuts. •Jim62sch• 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you removed my addition of the POV-section template. I did not understand why you did this. Was it because you think nobody but me is engaged in an NPOV dispute about that section?

You might take another glance at Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_page, where it says this:

• Use this when the bulk of an article is OK, but a single section appears not to be NPOV. You should explain what's wrong with the section on the talk page.

I wish you would leave NPOV dispute tags alone when you see them placed on an article, until a consensus develops on the article's talk page that the NPOV dispute has been resolved. --Uncle Ed 18:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, it's quite humourous that after inserting your POV into the article (a POV that was reverted), you decided to add a POV tag. Try using fact tags or request better sourcing. You know better. •Jim62sch• 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ai vist dins ta pagina personala que parlas occitan! Sul projècte occitan, avèm besonh d'ajuda! Sabi pas s'èras al corrent de l'existéncia de la "Wikipèdia". Esites pas a nos rendre visita, ès benvengut!
A lèu! Wikipèdia Cedric31 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmercé, Cedric. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, looking over your previous posts it seems like your preference for bluntness is closest to my own, so I'd like to talk to you directly. I came across the ID page when I was looking for a non-Christian, more scientific variant. It's clear to me that that page is a hopeless mess of argument and (to be blunt) bullshit, but I'd still like to get something out of it. I want there to be a page, somewhere, under some name (clearly not "Intelligent design") that deals with the idea of a designed, artificial universe and/or designed or engineered humanity. It's not "teleological argument" because not all of those ideas are religious in nature. I'll be happy to work on such a page, and to do my best to make sure it can't be "hijacked" by the ID people to serve as some sort of evidence that their "official position" is non-theistic (the last thing I want is to get the religious fighting making it impossible to research this other topic too). I think you've been dealing with this type of endless arguing a lot longer than I ever would, so I'm interested in hearing your opinion on how I should proceed, and how best to avoid the whole ID flamewar. Thanks! --Sapphic 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bluntness is refreshing considering the level of duplicitous doublespeak used by certain editors. I congratulate you. If I only had the balls to say what you do, I'd be happier on here!!! Orangemarlin 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gnixon had bitched that FM had reverted his digression without comment, that doing so wasn't fair, that he (nixon) had taken a very long time to write the digression, that he was insulted, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam (and I really do mean nausea) -- so, I only thought it fair to provide a reason for the rv lest Mr Nixon thought I was being unfair towards him  ;) Ugh, sometimes Wiki can be more drama and trouble than than a soap opera and we can't even win an Emmy for our efforts. •Jim62sch• 10:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out, that editor will file some Rf something because you've insulted him. I gave up editing articles where he was located, because he whines if you revert any of his POV pushing edits. I decided it isn't worth the effort. I'm having fun with some nice intellectual pursuits on here. Orangemarlin 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's free too do so, of course, I don't mind. Of course, the process can be used the other way too: he's a rather tendentious, POV-pushing editor who frequently wreaks havoc on the pages he edits, including causing other editors to avoid articles he is actively editing due to the nature of his edits, particularly on the talk pages. Wouldn't surprise me if a few folks aren't already considering an RfC on his behaviour. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're stalking. Diff I was accused of the same. [3] I just plain gave up on it. There comes a point when someone's POV pushing needs to pushed back by someone else, because I just don't have the time or energy to be nice about the push back. You should check out some of his POV edits. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me. If you think I'm right, I could use some help. Orangemarlin 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he apologised...sort of. POV edits on Physics or on ID (I know he's done some stuff there) or elsewhere? I don't care about his staking charges -- if an editor is running around making changes with a specific POV that he's pushing in violation of policy, fixing those edits is not stalking. See [4] Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

-- "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." •Jim62sch• 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an appeasement too far? Is this chappie to be the patron saint of faith based npov? Time for coffee and kip. .. dave souza, talk 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, reminds me of Chamberlain after Munich. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Fringe 1961:

Oi'll never forget that day that war was declared

Oi was out in the gaarden at the time, planting out some chrysants

It was a grand year for chrysants 1939, oi had some lovely blooms

My wife came out to me in the gaarden and told me the Prime Minister's announcement of the outbreak of war

Never mind, my dear, oi said to 'er. You put on the kettle, we'll have a nice cup of tea

<avoids mentioning the appeaser Chamberlain actually declared war on the Nazis, unlike some who waited till Hitler declared war on them. Ahem. Just trivia with no relevance to present company> Ta for your assistance, may the Good NPOV prevail........ 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did ye cross out the delaration info? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an inadequate html attempt to replicate typical British-style muttering brought on by the reminder of all those black-and-white war films. Gad, the horrors of war films. Chamberlain is much maligned, mostly deservedly. Meanwhile, the battle of ID continues, without my participation for a bit. What make you of recent goings on? .. dave souza, talk 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the question wasn't meant for me, but let me put in my opinion on the ID discussions. It appears that there are 2-3 POV pushers who seem to be exceedingly patient in the matter. One of the pushers complains that he's a "pot smoking liberal" but doesn't agree with the lack of NPOV on the ID article. As a matter of fact, very few "liberals" brag about their pot smoking. I don't inhale whenever I do. Another of the POV-pushers uses a technique of throwing in dozens of edits. Most of them look very legitimate but two or three are in fact very POV (anti-Evolution, in this case). Another one just keeps pushing the anti-Evolution POV over and over. Guettarda has indicated that there might be some interesting activities afloat to push a pro-religion agenda, and they are very careful as to how they do it. These users appear to be doing so. Another issue is that the several editors who have stood up to the POV-pushers aren't around. I've given up, because frankly, it's not worth responding to every bogus argument they make. Then if you do accuse them of their POV pushing, they file an WP:ANI, which takes more time. I'm frustrated by what's happening. ID is nothing more than a subtle religious argument for creationism. Why is there such discussions going on? I like Jim's responses--he's blunt, and could care less about what they creationists say about him. This whole thing is depressing. Orangemarlin 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> It's a bit more complex, as Morphh raised a genuine point which was backed up by a reading of Kitzmiller, leading to the current use of version 2. Despite the ghastly heading of "Just the facts, ma'm" which had me looking to see if it was a rasping person, Tomandlu is genuine and ok, imo. As I write, a useful suggestion is being put forward and agreed by Gnixon, who appears to be fair and against pro-ID pov, judging by recent actions. Looks promising, but I'm thinking about it before commenting... dave souza, talk 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim,

Back a few months ago, I stumbled into this nasty cobweb of an article. There are three or four main editors who are fighting over the issue of sources concerning this article (and its derivations). Though I wanted to help, I slowly backed out because I realized I had insufficient literacy skill in Spanish. Given that you're currently the only experienced Spanish-competent editor I know here, I'm asking if you have the time/energy/interest in helping sort out their dispute. --Otheus 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otheus, yes I'll gladly check it out tonight and over the weekend. Weird, but to me that should be a pretty straight-forward story, but I guess nothing's ever easy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this [5] good enough to remove the "fact" tag, Sir?. Randroide 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide, hi, that's cool. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, just before I left the debate, I assisted the group by starting DR on the talk pages, which is now archived, and you can read starting here. That seems to be the basic summary of issues. But of course, things get very personal and entangled shortly again after that. I'm really interested in this, so I'll continue to monitor, but beyond that, I doubt I can be of any help. Oh, your spanish might be better than Igor's english. --Otheus 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at this edit [6]?. I am tired of being the ogre reverting Igor21´s edits.

If you are not following the debate about the bombings in Spain, Igor21´s is a textbook example of POV edit. I can source this assertion if it is necessary. Today, I have had enough "hardening the Kalaji bunker".

If you think that the issue merits your attention, please be extra-kind with Igor21.

As a supplement to the link provided by Otheus, please take a look at Talk:11_march_2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_9#The_.22weight.22_of_the_groups_that_voice_doubts_about_the_completeness_of_the_Indictment.

Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide 09:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his horrid spelling aside, he is correct that the controversy surrounding the authorship has significantly lessened -- most people seem to have accepted the decisions of the courts. The controversy over the government response and Aznar's attempt to pull a Dubya and misrepresent facts, as well as police incompetence and potential negligence is real. Aznar thought he could simply pin the bombings on the ETA and ride hatred of the Basques to reelection of his Party.

In any case, a bit of rewordng is certainly needed.

BTW, it's no inconvenience ... I like new challanges! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of value might be La Teoria de la Conspiració from Catalan Wiki. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see another set of eyes on this page. It is as initially described. I hope you can return and continue to participate. Someone with a facility in Spanish, but not previously involved in this article, is greatly needed.--Mantanmoreland 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads in places like the set up for a conspiracy theorist's dream -- and I suppose that's the point. I've already found references that were mistranslated and others that did not support the statements to which they were appended. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suspicion too, but not being a Spanish-speaker I simply had to assume the translations previously provided were in good faith. Problem is that emotions run very high and some of the best-intentioned editors do not speak English well and are outmaneuvered in the Wiki bureaucracy. Glad you are back and please remain!--Mantanmoreland 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jim - do you know which page I need to go to in order to request a block on an IP address? Special:Contributions/206.116.24.245 has been vandalizing acupuncture-related pages. Hope you've been well! thanks much, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you were watching this sort of thing, but is this being kind and turning the other cheek in the way these religious chappies like? .. ;) .. dave souza, talk 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard Mod used since I saw The Kids Are Alright. Ymous is quite clearly just a bit off (possibly off his meds, too, guessing from the rambling nature of his posts).

Your reply was great! It'll take him a while to figure out how to reply. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sh,

I undid your reverts, and started a discussion as to why. Just wanted to let you know in case you did not have a watch. I think the initial changes I made were reasonable, and make the case on the Noah's Ark discussion page. ImprobabilityDrive 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vulgus (Wow, some dictionaries don't even have a definition that matches the one intended on this word. Simply using this word is elitist:) BTW, I took the world view quiz, thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the dictionary did not define it as elitist...that comment was referring to the context in which you used it (something like: if that is elitist, so be it). And I thought my vocabulary was becoming adequate, and first I misconstrue mythological and now get stumped (along with my dictionary) by vulgus. The first dictionary I checked had only "a short composition in Latin verse formerly common as an exercise in some English public schools" I had to resort to another dictionary to get the meaning you probably intended "the common people; masses". It's too bad that my usual dictionary did not have your definition, though. I don't want the OED, unless I can get it cheap and in electonic format. ImprobabilityDrive 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch,

Hello. I spent quite a bit of time going through the references trying to identify which ones were no longer mentioned in the article. I moved them to the talk page because some of them seemed to be pretty good, and as you know, finding, formatting, and adding such references is time consuming. I assumed (and I think this assumption is correct) that the references were used in the article at one time but became orphaned after content and citations making use of them were removed without due attention to the possibility that the removed citation was the only content pointing to the reference. However, another good reason to move them to the talk page was in case an error in editing was made (I was very careful, but mistakes happen.) And, if you think formating harvard references is difficult, try formatting them such that when displayed they are cut and pastaable. I did this, and it was time consuming. I don't want to toot my own horn, but I did feel a little ganged up on today, and I also think that you may have misunderstood the rationale and effort behind the reference move. Peace. ImprobabilityDrive 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim,

I just realized the implication by User:Orangemarlin is that I am User:Gnixon. However, I just compared contribution log of myself and Gnixon. There are some overlaps. Hopefully this will be sufficient to address the implication that I am User:Gnixon. I am not, and I don't know him either. Also, I am more than eager to collaborate with others. I think this rumor may be in part why I felt like I was ganged up on today at the Creation-evolution article. Please AGF, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OM uses the accusation of sock-puppet to silence people who disagree with him. Felonious M does the same. There is a group that pretty much owns the evolution area articles. They promote their POV by chasing away or eventually banning their competition. Right now they have been suppressed a bit. But soon the articles will go their POV direction. If you look through the history you will see many editors accused of being banned editors if they express views against the 'owner's'. But fortunately the bias of the articles is so obvious that people viewing them can see it right away. Good luck. 69.211.150.60 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't. If you're going to make a misstatement about what I have done in the past, you better be prepared for consequences Mr. Anonymous-who's-incapable-of-getting-a-real-account. Every sockpuppet charge I've ever leveled, save for one, and I took that back quickly, was endorsed by many others, and were successful. Orangemarlin 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anon, you're actually wrong on all counts, but be that as it may. If you wish to make further comments on my page, get an account.

I-drive: I don't knopw about the sock puppet bit, but it is OM's right to ask for a sock-check -- I've done it myself with other users and 80% of the time they've been socks (not that I'm implying that you and Gnixon are the same user). One user, Jason Gastrich was recently reinstated, and within 6 hours five socks were traced back to him and he was perma-banned. This is just one of those things we have to do if anyone has suspicions about an editor. Look, I was once accused of having a sock, but I didn't and the sock-check proved it. Ditto for FM who has been accused several times, but the sock-check showed there was no sock.

I would however recommend that you slow down and try to gain consensus or you're simply going to be seen as a POV-warrior. Quite honestly, a number of your edits seem like POV whitewash to me. Additionally, the issue of the references would have been best handled not by removing them, but by bringing them up for discussion. It's one thing to "be bold" it's another to be reckless. As with all communities, Wikipedia has its socio-political realities, and simply invoking AGF (akin to saying "trust me") does not recuse an editor from seeking consensus and working within the dynamic of the community. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the references, it really could not be handled much better. Not only was I careful, but just in case a mistkae was made, I conveniently formatted and posted the orphaned references to the talk page in such a manner that they could easily be reviewed, and if found to be mistakenly identified as orphans, copied and paste back into the article (without having to edit the talk page to do the copying, which is normal) with judicious use of <nowiki> takes. I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody who did so much (thankless) work so quickly, carefully, and conveniently. ImprobabilityDrive 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest for the trees. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I see an update to the death toll in Iraq, I get ill. I remember when I was young, and I watched Walter Cronkite report the news from Vietnam, stating the US death toll, I got ill. Then one night, a Marine Officer showed up at our front door to tell my father, who was a US Army Colonel that his brother was killed there. Even though it was 40 years ago, I remember it like it was yesterday. I can only imagine that story being repeated nearly every day. It's sad. Orangemarlin 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very sad, and such a waste of good men and women. I remember only bits and piece of Vietnam on the nightly news (I was only 10 when it ended), but what I remember has stayed with me all these years. Like Vietnam, Iraq is a war of volition not necessity and that makes me all the angrier as people are dying to fulfill the whims of a wannabe Caesar. With Prince Harry so willing to go to Iraq I often wonder why Jenna and Barbara haven't signed up to defend their country, OK, someone else's country, no their father's delusions of grandeur.

Tomorrow marks the four year anniversary of Dubya's trumphant flight onto a carrier, proudly proclaiming that the mission was accomplished. How hollow those words are now. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that interesting. Prince Harry, whose life is more privileged than anyone I know, is willing to risk his life in Iraq. Of course, the Royal Family has more passion for military service and service to their nation than any politician in this country. Oh yeah, Bush avoided the draft and lied about it (as opposed to Clinton avoiding the draft and being upfront about it). No Republican will send their kids to war, because stockbrokers and country clubs only send other people's kids to war. Meh. Orangemarlin 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the old line from Jefferson Airplane's Rejoyce, "War's good business, so give your sons; and I'd rather have my country die for me." Meh is right. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, was that an intentional double entendre, or just my warped imagination? ImprobabilityDrive 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I know its not my imagination. ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an RfC against this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed [:#[7]] as it is by SheffieldSteel.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rem [:#[8]] not really edit warring &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Don't worry about the creation-evolution stuff, each article is a different one and we are free to disagree on some things and agree on others. Peace. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I changed the sentence for physike as it was used in the past. Maybe it's better now, maybe not. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Case in point: the IRS recently changed "A refund check will be sent to you" to "We will send you a refund check". The problem? The IRS does not send the checks, a separate agency, the Financial Management Service sends the checks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hi Jim62sch. As you know we are trying to improve the article about the bombings that is in a very poor condition. I remove the conspirationist section about the former police and then Randroide keeps accusing me of vandalizing. I am planning to carry on with the improvement so Randroide harrassament will probably increase. Just to let you know that I have given your name to the admins who are being called by Randroide -who is taking his good editor disguise as usual- to block me for vandalizing. I do not speak very good English as you know (I am Catalan and I learned French at school) but I will try to do my best. I hope is not a big issue for you if time to time an admin contacts for checking if I am a vandal or not. Please let me know if you want me to stop giving your name as reference to the admins recruited by Randroide to stop me and Southofwatford or if you think is better we do not edit the article and do something alternative. --Igor21 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor, you can use my name, that's fine. I think the dispute is out of hand in that it's one thing to say that a controversy exists and another to try to paint the entire incident as some boig conspiració.

Don't worry about your English, if only my Catalan (I can read it but not speak it) were half as good! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks possible that one of the casualties could be the United Kingdom. This process has resulted in this, and if the guy looking like Charles Addams' grinning man has his way, the UK ends in three years. Not entirely probable, but subject to coalition, that's them with hands on the levers of government. So it goes, .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, could be. I've noted for a while that I envision a not-so-distant future when Scotland pulls out of the UK, and Catalonia leaves Spain. Interestingly, while the Italians would love to ditch Sicily, there's no move to separate the two. On the other hand, the Corsicans might (I hope) be able to get away from the French. They have absolutely nothing in common and their languages are similar only in that both are derived from Latin (see here and here). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more complex, in that support for "independence" is consistently around 30% here, and the SNP campaigned on offering a change in government, with separation put off to a separate referendum in around three years time. A lot of their support appears to have accepted their offer of a protest vote and some attractive policies (free care for the elderly, more subsidy for students) with the assurance that they can then vote against a split in the referendum, but of course the SNP openly hope to build their reputation and make independence seem more attractive. Interesting times. By the way, I nicked the heading from someone else, forgotten who. .. dave souza, talk 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess only time will tell what happens as far as full autonomy goes.

So, I guess I double-nicked then, eh? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. By the way, perhaps I should mention that the attractive policies are to be funded by demanding a cut of the taxes from North Sea oil. Never mind that currently funding comes from a formula giving Scotland a percentage of the UK budged that's widely thought to be pretty generous. So cynics expect such a demand to be turned down, and the SNP to then start wailing about how it's the UK's fault for withholding "oor money"! Will be interesting to see if this dire prediction plays out. Meanwhile, the main fuss is about a huge proportion of votes getting discarded as spoilt, about 10%, partly due to the design of the forms and partly failures in a new computer operated vote counting system. Which hanging chads does this remind everyone of? :( ... dave souza, talk 20:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see it's not just we Americans who can't manage to get an election straight. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durn tootin', looks embarrassed. Only 48 votes in a constituency just to the south of us swung it, if I heard correctly, but it looks like a very uncomfortably narrow majority, dependent on an independent nationalist and two greens as well as the anti-independence liberals all working together. Or a minority government. Wait and see. On other issues, so the editor who was puzzling me a bit was probably the vacuous one – alles klar. Apologies for any errors in that, I bow to your linguistic ability and feel sure you were being tactful about herr owlsmirror and knew all about the probable original meaning. ;) .. .dave souza, talk 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was actually restrained enough not to call him arsehole -- it would just have been too easy. We'll see what new incarnation he dreams up, but his editing will give him away again. Fools are like that, especially Jolly Jokers like Herr Owlsmirror. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button 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! HagermanBot 11:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response left on Hagerman's talk page. The page in question is an RfC, not a discussion page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I don't know the detail of the other accusations so have not yet commented, but your revision in the LBU list no. 4 "[13] Asserts thar Dave Souza's edits which clearly meet WP:V and WP:RS, and which have muliple citations of being an essay by placing essay tag on article." seems to me to misunderstand the sequence of edits leading up to it. I had just reverted an edit which Odd nature made and described as Reverting to last good version., which wiped out changes made by various editors including myself and JzG. So ImprobabilityDrive was actually agreeing with me, that two parts of that section of the article were based on an interpretation of unreliable sources and appeared to violate WP:NOR, and his edit could be seen as part of normal negotiation of an acceptable version, which now seems to have been achieved. Much as I dislike tags, it was drawing attention to a discussion and wasn't just vandalism. ... dave souza, talk 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ya stuck this in the wrong place. Odd, I didn't get a "you have messages" message. I'll go fix the item in the RfC. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd)Orangemarlin 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim62sch. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jim62sch/archive4. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, since I didn't put it there, it really doesn't matter, but thanks for letting me know. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that quite a number of admins thought something needed done to break the deadlock, and that it was my call, but I must do something.

I did what I thought best, under the assumption that, well, it's not like I'm going to defend it from anything but editwarring. Others can tweak at will. I just tried to put up something non-controversial, accurate, and weasel-free as a start.

With all respect, as far as I can tell, you didn't participate in the discussion to any significant extent. I was trying to find a solution acceptable to all the reasonable parties. And, yes, Morphh counts as one of them: She objects only to the inaccuracy of the old "argument for the existance of God" neglecting the important difference between it and the older versions.

I acknowledge it's a bit clunky. But that can improve, provided it's good enough not to inspire the rabid hate that leads to edit wars. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent you an amusing email regarding this: Talk:Searches for Noah's Ark#Orangemarlin stated: “Not a single search is being carried out by a respectable, published, and trained scientist.” Now how can I use this to my advantage? Orangemarlin 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't give you his permission to use his e-mail, so you probaly can't do that. You can state the facts he stated, but without attribution, the believers will just take that as you offering another (in their eyes) POV opinion. Of course, you could ask his permission to be quoted, but even then, I don't know if it would be applicable beyond the talk page.

Anyway, Katherin is a PITA and the two anon trolls don't even deserve a response. Any chance he might have blogged anything similar? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim: Didn't want to get too far off track on the ID talk page. Picking up from where it left off:

Actually, beef and cow shared phonemes in PIE only. Star and étoile (< Lat stella) only had the initial phoneme "st" in common. Now, there are linguistic rules that cover these phoneme changes, but we don't have enough space here to go into them. See Grimm's law for a few of them. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perdón a me, pero no entiendo Proto-Indo-European. But, there was a point in time and an approximate place on earth (a when and where), over two millennia ago, that the PIE root of "stella" came to be another earlier form of what is now "étoile" en français. And there also was another point in time and approximate place (another when and where) that "stella" came to be an earlier form of what's come to be "star", via the following approximate path as described by Etymologyonline.com: O.E. steorra, from P.Gmc. *sterron, *sternon (cf. O.S. sterro, O.N. stjarna, O.Fris. stera, Du. ster, O.H.G. sterro, Ger. Stern, Goth. stairno), from PIE *ster- (cf. Skt. star-, Hittite shittar, Gk. aster, astron, L. stella, Bret. sterenn, Welsh seren "star"). Apparently the French took a more divergent route over time to arrive at the present "étoile", but began with the same root. Here's another tack: Indo-European Root Etymology: Star. Oldest form "ster-". Suffixed form *ster-s-. STAR, from Old English steorra, star, from Germanic *sterzn-. Suffixed form *str-l-. STELLAR, STELLATE; CONSTELLATION, from Latin stlla, star. Basic form *ster-. ASTER, ASTERIATED, ASTERISK, ASTERISM, ASTEROID, ASTRAL, ASTRO-; ASTRAPHOBIA, DISASTER, from Greek astr, star, with its derivative astron, star, and possible compound astrap, asterop, lightning, twinkling (< "looking like a star"; ps, op-, eye, appearance; see okw- in Indo-European roots). Again, at the point of departure, whenever and wherever it occurred, these words had phonemes in common. ... Kenosis 23:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a point that I did not argue (this, "...only had the initial phoneme..." should have been in present tense, but I missed it in reviewing the edit). French étoile derived from Latin stella as estella in about the 8th century, étoile developed a bit later and the vowel changes (odd though they are) are standard for French (as is the addition of an intitial e before an s and the eventual loss of the s). I really didn't need the etymology (I know it and many others by heart), but I suppose it might help other editors. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of what PIE might have looked like, see [9]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all PIE to me ;-) Thanks for an interesting exchange. ... Kenosis 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I never got to put ice cream on it! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

Hah! I should've said "perhaps over two millennia ago". So you say it was only about 1300 years ago that "stella" began to morph into what's now "étoile". Interesting. ... Kenosis 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Old French started around the 8th century as a variation of Vulgar Latin, but the first example is in the Oaths of Strasbourg from 842. I'm working on a translation of the first few lines of the Chanson de Roland with OFr, Fr, Latin and English (for reference purposes) so you can see the evolution. (Obviously, the Latin will be a back-formation, but it'll still be helpful).

The deviation of stella (Hey! Stel-laahhh!) from PIE occured somerewhere between 3000 and 2200 years ago. I haven't found an old Latin source mentioning stella yet, so I can't be sure when the change it occurred, but Latin has existed since at least 800 BCE (the earliest inscriptions are from about 550 BCE) so the change occurred somewhere in that time period. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the TfD, but the template is not meant to imply that criticism should be removed from articles. It most definitely should not. Every article about a subject that is criticized should definitely have criticism.

This template is for articles that arbitrarily segregate all the criticism into a single section and leave the rest of the article overly positive. As the template says, the criticism should be "incorporated into more appropriate areas of the article". I've added an example and some rationale to the template page.

Can you think of a way to reword the template so it doesn't imply that criticism should be completely removed? — Omegatron 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read many books a containing criticism section and not a one of them contained a "criticism warning", nor should they. I simply do not see how a criticism section violates any policy or guideline, including NPOV. I can think of ten reasons to get rid of the template, and not one to keep it. Sorry, but as I do not see a valid reason for the template's existence, I cannot come up with a better way to phrase a bad idea. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections aren't horrible things, and criticism should always be included, but in a lot of cases, it's better to organize the article in another fashion. The template doesn't say that all such sections are bad, and definitely doesn't say that the criticism should be removed.

Can you show me an example of an article in which a Criticism section is used to good effect? — Omegatron 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism. For a controversy section, Intelligent Design

Note, I do nt disagree with interweaving the criticism skillfully though the article when necessary, but I do not see a functional difference between that style and a crit section. Criticism in and of itself is a troll/POV warrior magnet. Might as well make up a template like this:

&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with removing criticism from the article altogether. This does not make it "politically correct" or neutral. — Omegatron 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, ProtoCat is questioning your last post on Talk: Intelligent Design based apparently on a conversation I've been having on User_talk:ProtoCat. It's surprisingly... willing to debate... in fact it's a new account that has contributed only to Talk pages. I don't know what to make of it. SheffieldSteel 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sheff...I think my response should resolve that particular issue. I'm not sure if it's a sock, but it's definitely a single-purpose account, and they seem to get blocked an awful lot. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim: I left a post on User talk:ProtoCat recommending that some of the exchanges be struck or removed, towards a possible fresh start. Any interest? ... Kenosis 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call troll. After the "let's discuss this on my talk page/OMG! You followed me to my talk page! Stalker!" incident, I began to have suspicions, but this current "Please tell me what I did wrong?/OMG! You told me what I did wrong!" clinches it. Let's leave 'em be. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shall not feed the troll.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Gender-neutral_pronoun#Neologisms :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is hilarious. I think I'll stick with (s)he or he/she and her/him or him/her, despite fear of the Linguistics Enforcment Department (LED) forbidding the use of the slash. .... Kenosis 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that the fact I've been high on codeine the last few days probably hasn't helped, however, I'm trying to insist upon precision. ID varies from the classic teleological argument by pussyfutting around the nature of the designer. Thats the important definitional point, and from a simple stating facts perspective, that's what we have to put forth. The teleological argument is an obscure bit of theology. Explaining that ID is the teleological argument is insufficient to explain why it's not a scientific theory, and so it is wrong and far more likely to be DI-friendly edits to harp on the scientific theory aspect with such a weak rebuttal than anything I've wrote.

Hell, they're now trying to weaken the checks on the DI definition by going back to "proposition" as a description of a quote from DI propoganda about how great they are. And I'm the one weakening the message of the science side? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Adam, no offense, but perhaps you should limit your editing while you're drugged. It does seem to be affecting your ability to edit well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that the teleological argument is obscure, but that the phrase "teleological argument" is obscure. It's better to describe it. That said, I think Killer Chiuauaha's right. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite like design argument myself, but won't argue. Anyway, "cognates" is what the expert witness said. Hence the quote marks, whatever you linguist chappies call them. ;) .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas the witnesses were not linguists.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't find this offensive, but since you've been upsetting us all with those numbers for so long, I thought you'd be interested in the Grauniad's front page today: the top half is the picture shown (much smaller) here, and the big headline underneath it is about this story whichs most takes up most of the other half of the page, and both stories continue to pages 2 and 3 with a different main picture and graphics about the recent redeployments and casualties, and Bradley statistics: 22.7 tonnes, 45 mph, 6.65m long, $3.166m – translations into U.S. units available on request, but that's the mix of units we Brits seem to understand. Mostly. ... dave souza, talk 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just like Tet, only worse. However, if we try to follow-up with a Linebacker II type plan against Iran, I think we'll be in deep shit. See Iran is not Iraq

As for this: "But if Iran succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, he said." That risk existed from the time the invasion started. Of the 120K troops that were supposed to take part in the invasion, only 70K were actually available. The US bypassed towns and villages, failing to at least cut them off, thus allowing the insurgent movement to coalesce in those areas. The US proudly proclaimed that they had found thousands of Iraqi Army uniforms strewn across the desert, but conspicuously missing were the weapons. A major ammo dump was cleaned out because the US was too busy basking in the glory of "victory" to bother to make the ammo dump a primary concern. The increasing autonomy of the Kurds is seen as a threat by both Iran and Turkey. I could go on, but you get the point.

I understand the units of measurements, but admittedly the mixing of imperial and metric is a bit weird. Math problem for youngsters: if the Bradley is 6.65m long and travels at 45mph, how many times its length will it travel in one hour.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maths problem for me today: having been loaned a "courtesy car" by the garage doing my car's annual service, petrol tank (almost) empty, return as found, at a guess should do about 30 mpg (imperial, not U.S. gallons) – how many litres of petrol do I buy?

There was a weird hiatus after "mission accomplished", when there was a desperate need to pay the Iraqi army to be a force for preventing chaos, or lose their pay if they didn't behave. Being cynical I'd expected BushCo to bail out and leave the civil war to sort itself out, but they were too entranced be the profits they foresaw for Haliburton etc. to even seize the chance offered by the French to declare victory and hand the problem to the UN. so it goes. They keep coming out with the language of self delusion, so like ID....

Speaking of capitalism, have just put together an article about the latest local ferry here – the last shipyard in the area is hanging by a thread without any orders, and the (private) owner keeps wanting the government to put work his way without the need to compete for it – but he wanted the free market when it suited him..... dave souza, talk 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick decisions can generally equate about 4-and-a-half litres per gallon, and if you're in a real hurry "just under five litres makes a gallon" will do without running out of gas for bad arithmetic. Looked at the other way around, a litre will get you about 7 miles. But did I neglect to mention wildly exaggerated MPG ratings? Maybe better make it 6 miles a litre, and get there'nback safely too, OK? But then you're counting kilometres there, aren't you?... ... nevermind ;-) ... Kenosis 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might explain why so many Brits and Scots run out of gas.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on how many miles you drive it, no?

The Bushites are greedy little fools who couldn't figure out that a paper sack falls apart when it's soaking wet even if they were shown 200 videos of the fact.

The owner must be a Tory. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, yup, yup. :-/ . . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys do realize that the VC got their asses handed to them during the Tet Offensive, no? - Crockspot 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a military standpoint, yes, from a propaganda standpoint, they kicked ass. Unfortunately, the US and UK (and whatever countries have 5 or 6 guys there at present) do not have enough troops in-country to have the same level of military success this time, and we've already lost the propaganda war. Hell, we lost that within the first year of the "war". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, we've never worked together directly, but I've seen both your work and your comments on many of the articles that interest me, and sometimes we comment on the same talkpages. Whenever we do, it seems that we share near-identical positions on most issues. I look forward to seeing you around WP, and possibly working a project together in the future. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 00:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc, I've noticed the same thing. Maybe that means we're both crazy.  ;) Thanks for the message, I appreciate "hellos" (hmmm...should there be another e in there?). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear your afd of that article is based on a simple misunderstanding on your part. I suggest you read the articles in question and then withdraw the afd. Even if I am mistaken and you are aware of the topic discussed and still think it is invalid for whatever reason, what you want is a {{merge}}, not deletion. Afd is for inherently invalid topics. Afd isn't for merging or splitting discussions, you can do that on talkpages. I'd be pleased to hear a reasonable exposition of your point of view, but so far I honestly cannot discover rhyme or reason in what you are trying to tell us. dab (𒁳) 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not be withdrawing anything. If you want to suggest merge, do so on the afd vote.

What, praytell, is your reasoning for the split? Where was you consensus for making the split? How is it not a fork? What purpose was served by the split? Bottom line is, no matter what the reason, it is clearly a POV fork that can't be defended. And mo, afd is not for inherently invalid topics (whatever that means), it is also how one deals with POV forks. Look it up for yourself, the link is there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your determination Jim. I couldn't believe how much had changed so fast and am stunned that people are defending a major change made by a love-in of a couple of editors with virtually no discussion. Sophia 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sophia. I've yet to see a rational reason for the split, bolden's arguments are utter nonsense. "[A] love-in of a couple of editors with virtually no discussion"...I might've said, were I allowed to do so without violating WP:NPA, "without a clue", but I'll be nice and not say that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job NPA doesn't cover what we think huh? Sophia 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You learn a few things in debating.  ;) Besides, when I first got here I thought NPA stood for the "National Pediculosis Association", although I couldn't figure out why everyone was so occupied with lice infestation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Jim, but it had to be in order raise awareness of the problems. And in the end, I think he has to take responsibility for what he has said. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but only after the dung hill has been acknowledged and we can begin to work towards removing it from the market place. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let this rest but I must object to your mean-spirited and absurd posting on my talk page which I notice only just yet. Somehow you manage to accuse me of disruption when the one disrupting the article was Orange with his baseless and unexplained reverting of my valid edits. Because everyone was so focused on Jbolden nobody noticed his actions and I had no choice to draw attention to these. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't mean-spirited nor was it absurd: it was a statement of fact. Do I think OM should have calmed down before he posted? Yes. But, it's just wrong to drag that into article space -- people are allowed to vent, especially on their user talk page.

Good edits on God by the way. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely work on God - the article is improving enormously. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't know you were such an expert Jim. I know who to run to for help on all of these religion articles.  :) Orangemarlin 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could read it. Sophia 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written what I have written, but you have not read what I have written. (Technically, I should have done "scripsi quod scripsi", but I didn't want to mess up the biblical reference.)  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that one - I may use it and pretend I know latin! Sophia 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like this one too (I leave it as an edit summary when I get frustrated with Fundies trying to do things like put dinosaurs on Noah's Ark): "In principio creavit homo dei et ex eo tempore poenas dederat" In the beginning, man created the gods and he's been paying for it ever since.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or my favorite, Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur - "Anything said in Latin sounds profound". I find it useful in dealing with Jim. (:-P) OTOH, Non gradus anus rodentum may be more to your liking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No step ass rat? What? If you meant what I think you did, it's not translatable. Nil morari is the closest you can get. Interesting tidbit: in Latin, the root of "profound" (found most often in the phrase de profundis), is the exact opposite of "altum" in the quote. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nil carborundum illegitemii! Which reminds me, Johnson is regarded as the father of ID, but it was evidently conceived in 1987 before he'd even heard of it, which casts some doubt on the legitimacy of the offspring.... dave souza, talk 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sign when illegitemi reminds one of Johnson, but it's true.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the slow approach at the hypothemyth page - it's not worth getting frustrated about. Also Str is OK with me - we have our moments but with enough time and attempts to work out what each other mean, we should end up with a stable title. Ta for the latin - they will come in useful when I want to look educated! Sophia 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure Str out -- he makes some good edits and some really bad ones. Sometimes his logic is sound, other times it's seriously flawed. And I really wish he'd leave the language stuff alone -- he has no clue what he's on about. Now, I have to go try to stabilise that section. Grrrr. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's flawed like all of us. He made a point over at one article or another, where he was very logical. However, I still disagreed with him. Orangemarlin 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The joys of being human.  :)

In any case, on the God article he's busy claiming that Allah is not the Muslim name for God, while claiming "nameship" for a variety of other "words". I really wish that people who know nothing of linguistics would leave linguistic/etymological issues alone. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references given isn't a SCOTUS reference, and as i've tried pointing out several times on the talk page, the reference given is the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, in the Pennsylvania Middle District. As far as I (Or any reader who looks closely at the reference compared to the statement) can tell, the reference given does not prove that Intelligent Design cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in all United States public schools, only that it cannot be taught in all school districts which fall inside the Pennsylvania Middle District. Now, I may be missing out on some SCOTUS decision outlawying Intelligent Design nation-wide or a decision specifically calling it a violation of the 1st amendment, (I don't often hang around these Creationism pages) but if I am, nobody is being very forthcoming about which decision that is. Homestarmy 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go study the US Court System. When you get a good understanding of how it works, get back to me.

Also, see [10], and note "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause." ID was found to be in violation of previous SCOTUS rulings. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental gymnastics like that would make Big Brother proud. Seriously, when even other creationists think you're cracked, it's probably a good time to stop and reconsider. ornis 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know... you ever see that episode of blackadder? "... heaven is full of people who like doing heavenly things, like self flagellation, adoring god, potting flowers or resisting temptations of the flesh..." I dunno if the rapture's all it's cracked up to be.ornis 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first season, the one where he becomes the archbishop of canterbury. You should check out Black Books if you ever get the opportunity. AbFab is good, but I'm not such a fan of Are you being served. I'd also say steer clear of Little Britain, it's funny once, but after that you realise that they only have about ten sketches they repeat ad nauseam.ornis 19:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ornis 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing a line of text that was redundant! Robert K S 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the most recent reverts I've done to the Kennedy article:

11:13, June 19, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (17,235 bytes) (rv - Kennedy is not an IDer, has never claimed to be an IDer and his personal beliefs beyond life being designed are quite different from what IDers believe. References are spurious at best. See talk.)

12:04, June 19, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (17,235 bytes) (Undid revision 139233424 by Orangemarlin (talk) - It's not about OR. It's about verifiability.)

22:33, June 19, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (17,235 bytes) (Undid revision 139254277 by Odd nature (talk) - And reverting. See talk about the claim and these sources.)

15:10, June 20, 2007 Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) (19,801 bytes) (Undid revision 139489471 by Orangemarlin (talk) - the support is in the references)

As you can see, I'm still well within the 24-hour period. I still have one revert available for the next, oh, 7 hours or so. Jinxmchue 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report away if you think I'm in violation. I really don't give a crap because I'm in the right here. Jinxmchue 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]