Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:08, 11 February 2008

Jim is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

archive1 archive2 archive3 archive4 archive5 archive6 archive7

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.

Galicia

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Thanks so much

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)

Thank you!

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

Thanks!

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

Barnstar: thanks

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

What ho

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)

This edit

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)

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)

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)

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)

I guess you're stalking. Diff I was accused of the same. 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

<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)

Reversions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.  ;)

Wow

Lovely work on God - the article is improving enormously. KillerChihuahua 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Latin

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Deletion review of ]

WTF? What is so hard about grasping the legal concepts? Seems to me we have more than our share of officious admins who think they have the legal knowledge of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, but who are more like Vincent LaGuardia Gambini on a bad day. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I hate to engage in hyperbole, but here's some. I notice that the image at right, being a freely licensed image, was kept in this IfD while the classic, even stunnning Einstein-Planck image was deleted because WP wants to be free. Free of what? of everything of value in the world that someone hasn't yet given over to "free-license"? Arrgh! Thanks for letting me vent here. ... Kenosis 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the importance of that picture is that it shows just how stupid the up and coming generation is. However, the Einstein/Planck picture shows just the opposite and heaven forfend that we should depict intelligence when ignorance and idiocy are the general rule. Bah! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep your talk page on my watch list just coz I love your comments! Sophia 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I occasionally have my good days.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF? I just saved the images to my computer for future reference. Two of the most brilliant scientists ever in a picture whose licenseholder must be dead by now. Thanks Jim for making my day with your commentary.  :) OrangeMarlin 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric

I saw this comment at User talk:Quadell, and I wanted to ask you, please stop and think about what you are saying. Accusing someone of admin abuse and wikilawyering, in a good-faith dispute about Misplaced Pages content, is a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith; especially when directed at someone as unfailingly good-natured and civil as Quadell. I politely request that you retract the inflammatory remark. In regards to your comment about the ArbCom, you should read their decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali, which dealt with this very issue. With respect - Videmus Omnia 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we really do "see all" don't we? Sorry, VO, but I'll retract nothing. I realise Quadell is your friend, perhaps given the photo even your hero, but he was demonstrably wrong and he overstepped his bounds. We'll be following the next step in the procedure, and we'll be moving on as far as necessary to rectify the issue. I am not the only editor disgusted by Quadell's behaviour.

Secondly, while you may find him to be civil, I do not; yet, even if I agreed with you, I'mm afraid I have much higher standards: I respect knowledge and competence. Period. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite an example of Quadell's incivility? I've never seen him so. Videmus Omnia 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Words aren't everything -- see my above comment to Abu. Actions can lack civility too. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – Quadell 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume you were trying to accomplish something besides being a m:Dick. Dont template the regulars; if you wish to discuss something with another editor, try a little civility next time. It will go so much farther.

All that said, care to actually post a dif to the edit to which you are referring? Without context, I fail to see how Jim can address this.

Btw Jim, if you decide to delete this as trolling, don't mind my little post - my feelings won't be hurt in the least. KillerChihuahua 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is hard, nay impossible, to defend oneself against such serious charges without even seeing the evidence. Admittedly, this was no problem when facing the Volksgericht, but I had thought much more highly of Misplaced Pages, especially one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work. Although, now that I've mentioned it, I wonder if these serious and hurtful charges could be related to image work. After all, it is apparent that Quadell has at least temporarily been stopped from proceding with his image deletion spree, and I know that I played some small rôle in that unfortunate event. Ah, but I'm not one to assign motioves and I'm sure this is mere coincidence.

As for Quadell being a troll, well, such thoughts about one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work are simply heretical. There's just simply no way that such a well-respected and idolised administrator could be guilty of such a heinous crime, one that that nearly borders on admin abuse. Ah, but who am I to say, decisions of that sort come from arbcom, not some lowly editor with only 16K edits and 3 FA's.

In any case, I'm sure Quadell will clear up this issue, and provide the much sought after evidence presently. Certainly, at least, within the next 48 hours. I humbly await the presentation of such evidence, and if it isn't forthcoming, well...I'm afraid I'll need to assume that the Puppy has correctly called a spade a spade. Very sad, very sad indeed when one cannot trust one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work, who is a good egg to boot. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick note: the 48 hours is not a deadline during which I "expect" Quadell to respond -- his choice to respond or not is solely his alone -- it is, as I noted, rather the time after which I shall have to sadly assume that the Puppy was right. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have this page on my watchlist, so I might not see questions here promptly. Jim, you refer to "serious" and "hurtful charges", but I only ask for you to be more civil in your interactions with others. It's really nothing personal. You're not on trial, and no one is dredging up "evidence" against you. – Quadell 22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The point remains: I want to see diffs. You cannot accuse someone of incivility, and then just run away without providing some sort of evidence; a fact that both KC and Guettarda have pointed out to you here or on your user page. In addition, your tag, absent any diffs, is uncivil, trollish and very much vandalism in the sense that spraying "Bush is a dick" on the White House walls would be.

The template you chose also mentions "personal attacks", that too needs to be proved. The job of an admin is not to post drive by warnings and escalate, well, escalate some issue of which I'm not even aware. I really don't like to put it this way, but my patience with you is wearing thin.

BTW, I wasn't any too fond of your off-handed dismissal of Guettarda's concerns either. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought for a new day

The sun is shining for the moment here, so after all that πολεμικως, Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag :) ...dave souza, talk 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you the only one to catch the irony? I laugh...so as not to cry. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You pointed it out, you blighter! As noted here, that apposite article was a nice example of writing therapy. As it happens, it was inspired by one of the usual topic related arguments when someone mentioned faggots which in my opinion are ok but a bit more disgusting looking than haggis – but then I recall you have your own regional delicacies that outsiders probably don't appreciate. Chacun à son goût springs to mind, but I can't quite remember what it means. ... dave souza, talk 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Everybody has gout." Bishonen | talk 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

Yes, very close. Each to his own taste. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, revising my version: "Everybody tastes good." Bishonen | talk 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

Oooh, I like that one!  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have excellent French. I can say "J'ai assassiné mon oncle au'jourd'hui dans le jardin." And I'm working on some more phrases! Bishonen | talk 21:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

PS. Nothing yet — I guess I only have an excellent sentence. Oh well. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

What did your uncle do and why was he in the garden? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Sorry I've not been of much help lately, but things have been a bit crazy. And, thanks for tackling the rewrite -- quite a challenge you took on. Nice job. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd A propos comments on ElinorD's talk page

Hi Jim. I noticed your comment on ElinorD's talk page (diff). With regards to commenting that, "the rest of Elinor's arguments are like so much effluvium wending its way to the cloacae", saying that someone's arguments are shit is not appropriate, no matter how you phrase it, no matter how many obscure of terms you use. Of course, you and I and everyone may certainly disagree with others' arguments, but it more civil and appropriate to say something like, "I disagree with your arguments", or even, "I strongly disagree with your arguments". There is no need to say what you said. I ask that you please reconsider your comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to get to the matter at hand without pussyfooting around. I don't disagree with her arguments, I think they are as bogus as the "Twinkie defense" -- yes, that one fooled a lot of folks too. In other words, her arguments are coprotic.

Look, I understand your concerns, but I think if we were all just a bit more blunt and honest we might get to the point much more quickly. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm in agreement with Jim here. OrangeMarlin 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I am being oblique here, but then why did you not simply say, "Your argument is shit". What you said: "effluvium wending its way to the cloacae" means exactly that. Why say that, which seems to me to be exactly the opposite of being blunt? I had to look up the definitions of those two words, and I am sure others will too. --Iamunknown 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! A new day, two new words learned. That's why I phrased it the way I did -- teaching is fun. Any luck with coprotic? BTW, effluvium covers any detritus, not just fecal matter. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume detritus refers to other types of human waste, no? As for coprotic, no luck. No dictionary hits, nine Google hits ... it must be obscure. --Iamunknown 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very obscure...in fact it's likely that it's a neologism made up by some crazy Misplaced Pages editor who also happens to be a linguist and knows classical Greek.  :) Being a linguist is fun precisely because you can make up words that are semantically and orthographically correct.

Look at this article Encopresis and it'll become clear. :) – Jim said that ;)

This is fun! Me thought of coprolite, us old fossils eh! Now why the plural of cloaca, and were you thinking of civil engineering or anatomy? .. dave souza, talk 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Oooh, and William Gilbert's "electric effluvia"! Dunno how you get that down a sewer. By the way, my favourite quote from Shakespeare is "enter a sewer, with hautboys" from Macbeth, iirc... dave souza, talk 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep Macbeth. Cloaca just means one sewer, and Misplaced Pages is big enough to afford two.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Hi Jim, I don't regularly visit Intelligent design but noticed that some of your comments there were a little more sarcastic than necessary. That topic can get combative at times, so best not to turn up the temperature. Stay cool, man -- you'll score more points in the long run that way. Raymond Arritt 03:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, thanks. Yep, I get pretty pissed off -- it's this whole "not suffering fools" and "getting tired of proving that the sun is yellow for the nth time" thing. Personally, I find sarcasm to be an effective tool, but I understand your point. Oh, others who have posted here will likely be wondering why my response to you differs from my response to them: your comments were constructive, not accusatory. I respect that (even with my penchant for sarcasm  ;) Take care. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it -- we see the same thing over and over again on the global warming related articles (all the CO2 is coming from volcanoes/the ocean, etc). The worst is a couple of characters who know nothing about the science and in fact have demonstrated an alarming lack of aptitude for simple quantitative reasoning, yet quite comfortably talk down to other editors. Wonder if I can send Misplaced Pages the dental bills from gritting my teeth. It can be frustrating as hell, but I try to remember a quote I heard, "the one who loses his temper first, loses." Raymond Arritt 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the global warming arguments, and I've mostly managed to stay out of them. Cuts down on my bruxism wikiosis bills.  :)

I think what bothers me most is that those with little or no understanding of a subject tend to dominate the discussion and waste everyone's time until said tendentious fool is finally driven away. It can be very draining.

As for global warming, I can understand some of the dfisagreements as the science isn't quite as strong as I'd like to see it. Is it improving? Yes, but it still has a way to go, and we'll never get to the point where we can predict anything climatologiucal beyond the level of a reasonable possibility (it's that whole butterfly in the Amazon thing). However, that doesn't make the theory wrong, doesn't mean that CO₂ is spilling out of volcanoes or leeching from the oceans, doesn't mean that GW is some liberal conspiracy, doesn't mean that denialists aren't denialists deluding themselves with religion and pseudoscience, etc. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Very nice:

  from learning comes ratiocination;
  from ratiocination understanding;
  from understanding knowledge;
  and from knowledge wisdom

But why do you keep us in the Dark on your User/Discussion page? Please Enlighten use accordingly. The day today, in the Center of the World here (New York City) is Bright and Sunny. But your page here is Gray as it gets.

So why do you keep things here as Black as the Night is invisible?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the gray really that bad? I'm open to suggestions for a better color, although I hadn't really thought about it being gloomy. It's bright and sunny 90 miles to the south-south-west of NYC, too (think big city, cheesesteak sandwiches, a pesky baseball team that nearly caught the Mets  :). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Noetic necropathy

Just noticed that one. It's a keeper. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of Creation

Hi, Jim. I merged Purpose of creation into Unification Theology, leaving behind a redirect. Is that okay with you? --Uncle Ed 14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ed, yep that's perfect! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for edit warring

As I keep pointing out, I am not advocating any change in policy here, and my actions are in line with the current blocking policy. If you disagree with that assertion, I invite you to ask at ANI or some other policy discussion forum.

If you don't wish to avail yourself of any of the dispute resolution forums available for Template:Dominionism, there's little I can do to help. The point of my intervention was only to stop the edit warring, not to mediate the dispute. I had the explicit goal of treating all parties involved in the edit war equally. Indeed, if I only warned one side of the dispute, I wouldn't be acting impartially. It takes two sides to make an edit war, and often both sides feel they are acting in the best interest of the project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose we could move the entire mess to AN/I, but I wonder if you'd address my two issues raised on WP:AN there? If you are really interested in proving that 0RR does not violate policy (as several of us believe it does) why not post your reasons there? You've referenced two sections, WP:EW and WP:BLOCK#Disruption and yet nothing I can see, supports your interpretation. If I recall correctly, Dave Souza raised this point to you as well.

As for the rest, I'm sure you saw my comments on Guettarda's page -- it seems to me that you're dancing about the issue. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding on WP:AN. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it

You have been named an editor to avoid by User:Sadi Carnot here. I bet you're so proud, you're in tears. OrangeMarlin 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilsport! Yours ambivalently, dave souza, talk 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always been ambivalently ambivalent about you Dave souza. I'm also ambivalent about your name. I'm particularly ambivalent about your last name. Well, Raymond took away a few hours of fun. He is a spoilsport. LOL. OrangeMarlin 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I was upset at not being included on the list. Raymond Arritt 18:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm jealous... how does one get on an "editors to avoid" list? MastCell 16:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're on the list all right. It just isn't a public list. ;P - Crockspot 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's the case... I'm just jealous of the public recognition. MastCell 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To paraphase Sally Field, "he likes me, he really, really likes me". No ambivalence, even, I have recieved an honourable second. Hmm, I wonder what Sandy Georgia did to earn to honours.  :)

Raymond, don't fret, I'm sure another editor of Sadi's standing will honour you one day.  ;) 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that as arbcom's job. Why are you so hot to change the policy? No, I mean really, why are you so hot to change the policy? Yeah, yeah, AGF*. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in keeping things the way they are, and not introducing disruptive changes to the way Misplaced Pages operates, which is what the current PSTS model does. It's been very hard to convey this fact to people who don't edit in areas where this is a problem and these issues keep cropping up. This language may not be much of a problem now, but the longer it remains, the more problems we are going to have when people start realizing that PSTS does not allow them to cite many reliable sources such as highly technical peer-reviewed journals, published interviews, works of fiction, or philosophical works. COGDEN 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I just do not find this reasoning compelling. And I never have. When I ask, I just get nothing but BS back as answers to any question I have. So, I start to wonder...after all, I am trained as a researcher and academic and I think I have a little bit of an idea about what constitutes a good source and what does not. This sort of bloviating really does not pass the smell test to me.--Filll (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What questions do you have? There is a lot of fluff on the talk page, and I think I've made some really good arguments, but most of them are in the archive pages, and it's hard to find them given all the clamor. COGDEN 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Much sound and fury about nothing? LOL. I see no reason to change PSTS no matter how loudly you scream. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consider

--Filll (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation Request (la->English)English)-2008-01-28T21:36:00.000Z">

Hey there, I found your name under the category "Wikipedians who speak Latin". Anyway, I am in the process of working on an article about the Pont Notre-Dame in Paris. There is an inscription from Sannazaro under one of the bridges arches which reads: Jucundus geminos posuit tibi, Sequana, pontes Hune tu jure potes dicere pontificem See here and here for the original source.

Anyway, I don't speak Latin and cannot for the life of me figure it out...I was wondering if you could give me a translation if you have the time? Thanks much! 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go, Lazuli,:

"A happy man placed this twin bridge for you, O Sequana, a man whom you could rightly call 'bridge maker'" -- there's a pun on Pope in there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)English)"> English)">

No point in arguing

Time to abandon the article to the ASPOVers. There is little value in arguing with them as they still have a problem with the concepts of neutral and weight and our typically lax admins aren't pulling them up for it. Time to let the admins do some of the ground work. Shot info (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points: especially the last. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

witty riposte?

In case you did not see it, Jim, I left you this earlier: Hope you see and enjoy it, cheers :-) Peter morrell 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That was good.  :) Oddly, the play had never appeared on my radar -- and I say oddly as Latin is the perfect language for satire (cf Juvenal, "Difficile est saturam non scribere." (It is hard not to write satire.)). I've ditched the homeopathy article for a while as some of the pro-homeopathy editors are just stupid and definitely lack your expertise. Maybe you can whip them into shape? I hope. You know I'm no homeopathy supporter, but I do want to see a fair article and some of those editors are just grasping at straws and don't seem to really understand the concept at its basic level. It might help too if you an Filll got that dilution article done. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No funny

Not funny, inflammatory, trolling. And having the chutzpah to post a link to my page. Shameless. Just because of that I will resume editing these articles. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I am totally confusd here. What the heck is going on ?--Filll (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're not alone Filll. See . Jossi, edit away: As of Thursday, I'd given up on homeopathy other than to drop by and look at the chaos from time to time. Enjoy the page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They're in, then out, then they shake it all about

They do the hocky pocky then they ignore NPOV, that's what Misplaced Pages's all about :-) Shot info (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, now I won't get that song out of my head. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh!  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:-) Shot info (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Difference in presentation

Ok. Please explain how our presentations were different and the significance of the difference. You comments are greatly appreciated. Anthon01 (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just note that Art is an NPOV warrior. Let's just note that Art isn't tendentious. Let's just note that Art's posts are logical. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism