Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 29 September 2006

User:Jim62sch/archive1

User:Jim62sch/archive2

User:Jim62sch/archive3

User:Jim62sch/archive4

User:Jim62sch/archive5

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)

Golden Earring

That's well done, excellent work! I'll get around to fix this article some more (non-POV related) issues. SoothingR 13:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I love guitar music as well, but don't worry too much about the removal of those paragraphs. They sound very unlikely and they were also unsourced. Even if it turns out to be true, then somebody else will probably put the info back in. I think it's fair to remove the {{advert}}, so I just did that. SoothingR 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

An apology

Hi there. I owe you an apology for tagging your votes at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote as not having suffrage; the tool I was using checked only the date of your first edit, instead of the time you actually registered. Normally these two dates are very close to each other, and I'd only been doublechecking those whose first edit was in the first few days of October. —Cryptic (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Latinitas

Iustinus iacobo s.p.d.

Si verum est te volubiliter, quasi esset lingua patria tua, Latine loqui posse, quin Vicipaediae Latinae contribues? ;)

Valeto, Iustinus 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation

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)

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)

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

Thank you!

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

My RfA

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 47/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

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

My compliments

I really appreciate how you responded to my comment. It would have been easy enough to scoff and say "that guy is prob. a nut, and its all in good fun" (which would probably have been true), but its still best to tread lightly, as even (or more accurately "especially") nuts have feelings.

In a way this brings out an important point: from which paradigm do we view humanity? There is clearly more than one way to view us (or anything). Our job is to give appropriate balance (WP:NPOV), rather than emphasizing any one POV (like biology or theology for example). Even if a significant POV is regarded as "nutty" my many, it still deserves inclusion. I hope you can agree. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Adiu!

Ai vist que parlas occitan! Avem besonh d'ajuda e de contribucions per far avançar lo projècte en lenga d'òc... Ès benvengut se vòls participar! :)

A lèu! ]

Cedric31 21:11, 21/02/06 (UTC)

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog) 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Clear Light

Hey, nice job on improving the Clear Light page! I had found a Yahoo Group devoted to them, where I announced the article I started but got only thanks, no feedback. BillFlis 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Today's article - well done! Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTCF 12:12, 28 March 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)

Quoi faire

Est-ce que tu as vu ce que l'un de notres collègues vient de faire, voire ? Je ne vois pas de tout, le lien qu'il puisse exister entre la citation qui il vient ajouter et la "soi-disante" conclusion. C'est merdique!--CSTAR 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Jim, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Faith

Knowing your deep interest, thought this might interest you. ...dave souza, talk 15:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And on another interest, Talk:State religion#Ha-Ha-Ha! might amuse....dave souza, talk 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

JA

Hi Jim! I need to think about that a bit and get back to you soon. Fact is, JA and I had worked out a modus vivendi, but I needed to take a break from that increasingly unproductive conversation. It had become a linguistic plague of fancy writing without any direction or perspective, except for an ongoing gambit to dominate an article of common interest (truth) with his own POV, with his meandering writing style, and his myriad unnecessary technical obscurities. Those obscurities, incidentally, largely amount to OriginalResearch-type syntheses of various sources with a heavy emphasis on the complex work of Charles Peirce, which are neither understandable to most readers nor even necessarily correct on the whole. Talk with you a bit later. ... Kenosis 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

on 33. KillerChihuahua 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mangojuice 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Until this week I had never spent any time to speak of at RfA and I hadn't realized what a esoteric trip it is into Wikiculture. While I haven't abandoned the idea of my RfA passing, I'm beginning to realize that what is more important for the good of this project is that RfA is in desperate need for some clarification and consensus overhaul. "RfA" should be just a request for a few tools that experienced Wikipedians use to help out, but apparently more and more people view administrators as overlords or uberusers able to leap encyclopedias with a single bound. Yikes! We'll see where this all gets me. You can join the fun if you'd like at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship. --ScienceApologist 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

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)

Thanks!!

Can't tell you adequately how much I appreciate your comments -- I've been discouraged by the lack of chemists coming to support me, and to have a person not in science (I'm guessing) so clearly understand the problem of communicating a new (but already validated) view is most encouraging. THX! I have virtually given up hope of substantially changing the Entropy article, but it is so grievous to me as an old 'teach' that hundreds of thousands of students and adults checking Misplaced Pages will be led down the old path that has baffled millions for a century! There are several better, slightly or considerably more mature (!) intros to entropy that I'd recommend. For non-science adults, www.entropysimple.com, for youngsters beginning chem http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html or perhaps the best, the link cited at the first "what's new" at www.entropysite.com. The trend in chem is marvelously in my direction (and this morning I'm meeting with a world-class physicist-author who agrees with me and working on an article), but it's the public -- who COULD readily understand entropy via my approach -- that just are not being reached... Again, my gratitude.. Oh, P.S :-) re 'order' in the energy distribution in ANY physical system (and it is energy distribution that entropy measures!) just glance at the beginning and the end of http://www.entropysite.com/order_to_disorder.pdf . It's the final scientific 'nail in the coffin of 'disorder'. FrankLambert 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the reversion of the Damadian page?

The issue was raised about Damadian and Carr's protests over the Nobel being "whining". I was merely trying to put this in perspective and neutralize the POV by noting the importance society gives to proper assignment of discovery credit. I gave two examples with proper citationa and links-- The local scandinavian rules defining scientific misconduct and Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Pray tell, what is wrong with this and why can it not be discussed on the talk page? Drive-by reversions are tacky. Pproctor 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

Robert Morey

To the first one you wrote. You must have known that adding what was really less than one line was likly to get deleted. As to the second time, you are right I should have checked a bit more to see if it was a repost of the same material or a different article. I apologise for that and will restore the article. I have also added back the category and fixed the references. Once again my apologies for being a bit trigger happy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:29, 12 August 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)

Your note

Welcome. Hope it sticks. :-) SlimVirgin 15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Half Truth

Hi Jim, I will try to take the half-truths article under my wing and improve it for a while. I can see why it was nominated for deletion though. Caesar seems to be trying to get the article canned with all the OR and POV material he wants to include. I almost wish I hadn't added the Examples section now - I can see its going to cause edit wars. Feel free to jump in and edit the page if you revoke the AfD. It needs all the help it can get! --Dave 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Baldassare Squitti

Could you please check the Italian Chamber of Deputies at http://www.camera.it/ to see if it has a list of former deputies? If it does, then that would allow the information in Baldassare Squitti to be verified. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Stiffle

Er, I don't think Stifle is acting as a clerk here. JoshuaZ 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA again

re: your message of July 11, 2006

I'm not sure what happened, but it had something to do with Alienus. The trail starts here.

Sorry to take so long to respond. I would have responded sooner if you had left your message on my talk page, rather than my user page ;) Arch O. La 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: SOPHIA returned on August 23. Arch O. La 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim - I think it's all I can manage with the way things stand at the moment. And reading your talk page I certainly don't envy you at the moment. Sophia 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

John McGinness Bio

Again, this AFD only occurred because I offended certain people over on Raymond Damadian by defending Dr Damadian, an avowed creationist. Check it out on talk:Raymond V. Damadian.

Added: perhaps you were one of them. The "NO" names on the John McGinness RfD do show on Talk:Raymond Damadian and the various Creationist pages. Bit of a coincidence, considering the 1.3 million entries on Misplaced Pages.

The tremendous irony is that I am reasonably well known in human evolutionary biology. E.g., I published a paper in the journal Nature on one of few known examples of classic Darwinian natural selection in human evolution-- Nature , vol 228, 1970, p 868 "Similar Functions of Uric Acid and Ascorbate in Man". Likewise, Dr. McGinness' work pertains to the other significant example of natural-selection in humans, skin pigmentation and latitude.

Added: You-all are seriously undermining your case by harassing your allies for trying to neutralize the POV. Cut it out.

One reason I supported Dr. Damadian's claims to be one of the originators of MRI was to elevate the discussion and provide NPOV by showing that we board-certified, card-carrying "Darwinists" call things as we see them, even with creationists. Next thing you know, I am accused of vandalism and promoting "creationism"--obviously, somebody had not a clue. Similarly, my posts on other pages are getting deleted under spurious "vanity" objections and this Bio gets an RFD. Pointing this out is not "clutter" and it is quite relevant to this RFD.

Added: The Creationist nut-jobs are going to use this one to "prove" that their paranoia is justified and that the "Evolutionists" suppress dissent even among their card-carrying adherents.

Back to the subject at hand. Citing WP:NOR-- You are merely expression "opinion". Not allowed here. Do you have any cite, evidence, etc., that Dr McGinness did not do exactly as the definitive documentary evidence shows. Similarly, how can you claim with a straight face that the inventor of the "Plastic Transistor" is not "notable". If you have a new color cell phone or a color display on your car radio, you are probably looking at the ultimate descendent of Dr McGinness' device. Pproctor 14:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Left on Proctor's talk page

Get off the cross. Do not leave such rambling slop on my talk page. And do not even think of telling me what is and is not allowed here -- I do not suffer fools, least of all arrogant fools.

Next, the Damadian article has nothing to do with the issue of McGinness, but rather the fact that the man has few hits on the internet and that I sense self-aggrandisement do. Is the internet the be all and end all? No. But, if his papers were ref'd by so many people, there should be more than a few hits. In any case, I am not changing my vote. Word of advice, long rambling screeds indicative of a persecution complex and which are presented in an adversarial tone are unlikey to achieve your ends. •Jim62sch• 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Mccready's email

See my response to Mccready's unblock request by email. Hope this helps since nothing else has so far. Take care, FloNight 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

Can we move to close the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Taken to the next step. Arbusto 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Arbustoo removes material

Arbustoo (talk · contribs) removes sourced material from articles when he finds that it disagrees with his single-minded desire to defame fundamentalists at all costs. Just take a look at his edits at Hyles-Anderson College, Jack Hyles, Bill Gothard, First Baptist Church of Hammand, and many others. He claims that he can add "critical" material to these articles and uses such sources as the personal blogs of critics as source material, clearly violating the rules of Misplaced Pages and especially the guidelines for WP:BLP. I'm not the only person that has found Arbustoo's edits to be over-the-top. 13 editors (not counting numerous from the same IP space) have commented that Arbustoo is making biased edits.

Now we come to Preying from the Pulpit, an article that over 90% of the people that commented on said should either be deleted outright or merged with another article. We have sourced information that criticizes this documentary, but Arbustoo removes it. Apparently, Arbustoo thinks criticism is only acceptable when it criticizes fundamentalists preachers.

Now I'm not a fundamentalist, in fact, I'm not religious at all. I think they are all a bunch of hogwash, but I do want Misplaced Pages editors to follow the rules and guidelines of Misplaced Pages that prohibit the sort of ridiculous edits that Arbustoo is making here. He is turning the encyclopia into a series of tabloid claims made by opponents.

I look forward to more input from other editors and admins in this situation, because in the end, I know that other unbiased editors looking at Arbustoo's edits will easily see what kind of campaign he is running.

I look forward to engaging in more discussion Vivaldi (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

I appreciate your input at Preying from the Pulpit. I believe that I have been misconstrued, by you, and others of being some sort of supporter of Hyles (and other Fundamentalists). I understand after having to deal with Gastrich why you might be skeptical of people making changes to these articles, but you can rest assured that my only interest in these people came about because another editor pointed out the Hyles articles, and specifically the biased and POV-pushing editing of arbustoo (talk · contribs) in the article. After seeing that Arbustoo has an obvious agenda with these articles, namely ensuring that they contain as much negative information as he can possibly fit, I decided to take some action to improve these articles and Misplaced Pages. I have no connection to Fundamentalism, (or even Christianity), my views on religion would be considered atheist or agnostic. My only concern is that editors, and specifically Arbustoo, are using Misplaced Pages to defame living persons and smear organizations using material sources that originate from personal blogs and self-published works. In fact, left to his own devices, Arbustoo would have 99% of each article be nothing but criticism of the topic. Arbustoo has a clear agenda here, and it isn't presenting articles in a neutral point of view. Vivaldi (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR

It is a policy page. I believe policy pages should have a much much lower threshold for protection than articles. Be that as it may, my protection doesn´t block administrators (and there must be thousands by now). If someone fels I acted inappropriately and undoes the protection I won´t protest, but I do think it was warrented. As for expressing my support, one reason I felt free to protect is precisely because I had stepped out of the debates some time ago - making only minor comments about process (rather than arguments for any changes). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey

Are you aware of the history of Jon Awbrey, who started no less than four substantially identical "Wikiprojects" including WP:EEE? In short, he considers himself an expert (which may well be right), but his editing style and debating method (including idiosyncratic reply formatting) pretty much universally piss people off. I first became aware of him after a long series of trolling threads on the mailing list, purporting to be an "exit interview" about how he was leaving the project because his edits kept being reverted just because they were original research. I deleted the other three as WP:POINT violations, but the one you signed up for is still there in case you think it can be salvaged. Guy 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Janelle Monae

Hi, you tagged the above for copyright violation. However, the vio has been committed only in the later revisions and so I've reverted it to a non-infringing version. You could do the same if you come across an article which is not copyvio in its earlier versions instead of bringing it all the way to WP:CP. As that page declares in the box, "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can. The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." Cheers!! --Gurubrahma 05:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your note

You're welcome, and thank you. :-) SlimVirgin 10:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Passive voice

Jim, this is passive voice:"According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism.

Passive voice occurs when verbs of being are used in a sentence: An active voice rewrite would be: "[[TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League closely associate Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation with Dominionist.

The same idea gets presented, but in active voice. I have edited for a newspaper before, so I think I know a thing or two about grammar. Also, refrain from using which without a comma. Instead, use that in place of which.

Read Strunk and White's "Elements of Style," which WP:WEASEL establishes as the stylebook of preference on the subject. --Pravknight 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the paragraph is not passive voice. If English still had a middle voice, it would be similar to a middle voice, but for the purpose functionality it is active. This is in contrast to Sanskrit and Greek in which the passive voice assumed the form of the middle while keeping the meaning of the passive. See, I too edit professionally -- quite a lot, in fact -- and I'm also a linguist. Now that we've bored each other with our CV's, see the example of "passive" voice I left on the talk page.

As for "that and which and the comma" (book title?), what you nooted is indeed the conventional usage, but such usage is now falling into disuse -- along with so many other good rules. BTW, I have a copy of Strunk and White's "Elements of Style," thanks. In fact, the most recent addition now allows "they" as a pronoun to reference a single person -- much to my chagrin, I must admit. •Jim62sch• 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Honorifics

I hope you'll note that I referred to the specific policy on the talk page, which does not exclude all honorifics, and which would appear to support my position. Gabrielthursday 12:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Father is functionally the same as Doctor or Professor, so it does not belong. We already get the point by the SJ after his name, "is a Jesuit priest" in the intro, and the "Priesthood and theological study" section. •Jim62sch• 12:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again using the analogy from Knights, they are referred to as Sir Adolphus Wigginbotham, KB, KCMG. The Sir is the title- the KB illustrates where it is derived from. So too with the SJ- I'd note, however, that for priests there are those who will have no initials, being secular priests. I'd agree that the "is a Jesuit priest" would be redundant if I thought most everyone was aware of the meaning of SJ, but I rather doubt it- and it would result in a problem with consistency if applied to, say, Norbertine priests. The headnote is a summary of the specifics, so I don't see any important redundancy with regard to the "priesthood" section. While the question of exactly why Father is different than Doctor or Professor may be complex- I'll try and hint at it. One is not made a Doctor, but rather becomes one on account of having earned a Ph.D. One is made a Knight; one is ordained a priest. Such distinctions may seem nonsensical to you, but I suggest that that's the reason why they have come to have different usages- and why Fr and Sir are "stickier" than Doctor. Gabrielthursday 12:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to copy the above to the Coyne talk page (and my own). Let's continue the conversation there, and avoid these multiple threads. Gabrielthursday 12:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we're intractably opposed, though I am not entirely certain of your reasoning. Perhaps this is a broader issue though. How about raising this issue in the WP:MOS and soliciting comments? Gabrielthursday 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR talk

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflict reduction

Hello Jim62sch. I realise we don't see eye to eye on some facts, but please keep personal issues out of the discussion on pseudoscience. If you have a personal issue with me, discuss it civilly on my talk page. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 03:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: See KV's page. •Jim62sch• 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Gentle Rotweiler

Unsurprisingly, User:Gentle Rotweiler, the recent editor at Truth theory and Truth Theory, as well as many recent editors at WP:NOR, were sockpuppets of User:Jon Awbrey. Jayjg 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate that this category had to be created. Jayjg 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

He's very energetic too, he created them all in 3 days. Still, he doesn't compare to Wik or Zephram Stark - not yet, anyway! Jayjg 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't suppose that was meant as an insult to me, do you? Gentle/Killer, Rottie (large scary dog) / Chihuahua (small unscary dog). KillerChihuahua 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. Of course it is, but I didn't realize that until you mentioned it. He created that account to revert you. Jayjg 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I hadn't thought of that. •Jim62sch• 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to speculate on the rationale behind User:Bartleby Clinch's uname? KillerChihuahua 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...something about quotes, but then clinch doesn't make sense. •Jim62sch• 16:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bartleby's has full content of many philisophical works, clinch as in during a wrestling match? KillerChihuahua 16:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate wrestling. ;) •Jim62sch• 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log ) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 00:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the Pope Benedict controversy page and catholic editors

While there are WP:AUTO concerns when closely affiliated people attempt to edit an article I don't think there are any of those concerns here per se. Simply being a member of the same denomination is not by itself enough to trigger those concerns. JoshuaZ 14:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said there was, do you? I questioned neutrality, not a right to edit. Reread what I wrote. •Jim62sch• 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Having re-read what you said your comments in these specific cases seem to be within acceptable guidelines and of course my comment about WP:AUTO should be ignored. JoshuaZ 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dutch language

Thanks for your kind message. I surely did not imply you "lost your marbles", I was aware of the general meaning of 'to inscribe' but generally one thinks of carvings or etchings and the article does not state either the material or the technique used to produce the text – so I preferred the more common verb.

Whether unbidat ghe or unbidan we was written, could not for sure be determined and I followed the referenced source, though to my layman's opinion expectamus would suggest 1st person plural unless the Latin would have deviated from the Dutch-and/or-OE phrase underneath. I merely introduced the source and an alternative reading of the sentence, because it is so often quoted (I think I learned it when I was 13 or so) as if the text is entirely readable and undisputed. — SomeHuman 18 Sep2006 23:48 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm| 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

About 20; would quit if there weren't so many really good editors around, yourself included. Am seriously busy thoughGleng 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Vitalis page

Following your fairly arbitrary revert on my talk page for alleged NPA infringements, I couldn't help but be fascinated by your contribution to the Vitalis talk page, and I quote:

"That will do for now"? ROFL. What are you, the Mahatma of all things Scientific? Nah, you can't be, the title of Mahatma is not bestowed upon those displaying pernicious arrogance. You see, KV, you again fail to comprehend how Wiki works -- Gleng is under no obligation to do as you demand, and most certainly not when your demans is made in such an obnoxious manner. Odd, but on your user page you proclaim yourself to be an admirer of Mohandas Ghandi, and yet you share none of his attributes. •Jim62sch• 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you not regard describing the previous editor as having "pernicious arrogance" and as being "obnoxious" as pretty clear-cut NPA violations? What do others think? I believe this merits an NPA warning on user Jim63sch. MarkThomas 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good if you find user Jim63sch, leave it on his page. BTW, Sparky, you're wikistalking. BTW, it's vitalism. Vitalis is a hair ointment. ROFL. •Jim62sch• 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Entropy = ennui?

Dunno if you're still watching the page, but Talk:Entropy#Increase of entropy is not necessarily dispersal of energy suggests that User:PAR doesn't share Frank Lambert's view of entropy or my view of NPOV: your comments would be appreciated, if your energy's not all drained away at the thought... . dave souza, talk 09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim, sorry to raise the point at the crack of dawn. Gets the ball rolling nicely. ..dave souza, talk 11:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So we have some citations. May have put my foot in it as Lambert seems to refer to the mixing gases situation as involving an increase in entropy which he relates to the motional energy of each gas spreading out more widely into the larger volume of two bulbs. However in his Disorder paper he not very helpfully adds that "Entropy change in a number of other basic processes can be seen to be related to that in the expansion of a gas.  The mixing of different ideal gases and of liquids fundamentally involves an expansion of each component in the phase involved.  (This is sometimes called a configurational entropy change.)  Of course the minor constituent is most markedly changed as its entropy increases because its energy is now more spread out or dispersed in the microstates of the considerably greater volume than its original state.  (The "Gibbs Paradox" of zero entropy change when samples of the same ideal gas are mixed is no paradox at all in quantum mechanics where the numbers of microstates in a macrostate are enumerated, but will not be treated here.)" Make what you can of that. However we clearly have two viewpoints, both of which should be shown for NPOV. In my opinion. ....dave souza, talk 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ta Jim, the problem in the Mixing paradox is that each is spreading out into the other in a way which is the same as joining two volumes of the same gas, which would not show an increase in entropy. While raising the point on Frank's page I noticed that the answer may be Gibbs' own answer, that if the gases have no thermodynamically effective difference, treat them as the same. What's more puzzling is the Entropy of mixing idea that mixing two different gases creates a jump in entropy. Will rest head and cook tea now, thanks for putting the pressure on. ..dave souza, talk 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps the crucial point is that PAR concedes there's spreading out of energy while adding "but I don't think it is productive to think of" it in that way, while Lambert says it is important in that context. Anyway, some arguments are tending towards OR, and PARco will have to produce sourced criticism of Lambert's ideas assuming we have both viewpoints getting their place in the article.. ...dave souza, talk 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hi
You are one of 16 editors who I decided to infrom about my request for adminship, which is now in its second day.
Why 16? I don't know, I just like the number. Though it was tough only selecting 16. : )
Why you? Well, you are someone who I feel might offer a thoughtful/insightful opinion, based on what I have witnessed of you previously.
I place no expectation on your response.
Thank you in advance for any effort involved (such as going through my contribution list, and even just taking the time to read and post).
In any case: Have a great day! : ) - jc37 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vitalism

Hi, Jim. I don't have the time to research the issues on Talk:Vitalism in any depth, I'm afraid. I do see incivility on the page, though, and I can't say it comes from Krishna Vindaloo, the way it looks to me. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, the rudest post I see is yours. I was also a little surprised to see you first take the tone to me that you did on ANI, and then have nothing to say to my reply on my page. That doesn't correspond to the impression I had of you before. But perhaps you simply missed my post. About the sockpuppet? Bishonen | talk 00:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC).