Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 24 December 2007 (→Objections to evolution: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

"Intelligent design"

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)

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)

Archive horrors

It may have been better to let an administrator handle the unarchiving at Talk:Creation science, since now the page history is all at Archive 12. Just a thought. Silly rabbit 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And you missed the bullshit lectures I received from a couple of do-gooders about my vandalism tag I placed on the fine, good faith editor (who is obsessed with panties for some reason) who decided to make this one-man reversion. Sometimes I just want to scream. Hold on....did you hear that? Orangemarlin 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Irritating isn't it. I got a friendly lecture from some well meaning soul --who clearly didn't read the discussion he restored-- suggesting I should have assumed good faith on octoplus' part... humpf. ornis 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, you might have a point, but I at least wanted it to get to something that represented our recent efforts. OM, that panties accusation sounds serious.  ;) Ornis, yes it's irritating, and the AGF mantra is so overplayed it makes me want to scream.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My panties are a cute pink. Orangemarlin 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Way too much information.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

your comments on my talk page.

I have asked for comment on this issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps you might make explicit those "few facts" I have left out of my account, and explain precisely how I did not follow correct archiving procedure. Banno 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, if you wish. I think the fact that several well-repected Admins disagreed with your actions speaks volumes.

Besides, what is so hard about saying, "oops, I screwed up". Is pride that big of a deal for you that you cannot admit to an error? If so, that's sad. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know

You know, it would really help if the three of you stopped digging in and ceased throwing around accusations, and instead focused on the content. It is very simple: a category here is always going to be incomplete, and is going to lack additional information on the signing people, e.g. their degrees and states of origin. A list is therefore a more comprehensive way of showing this information. Some of us are trying to improve accessibility here, and others are mistaking that for evil censorship, or something. Change category to list, problem solved - it's that simple. >Radiant< 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which misses the point, yes? The point of the DRV is that you closed the CFD wrongly, yes? My other points were regarding your edits and their summaries, yes? This has nothing to do with list vs category, unless you've shifted the discussion to take some of the heat off of you. It's just that simple.

And "the three of you" refers to? Do tell. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well, it seems Radiant conviently removed this from his talk page (not surprising, really, most people hate criticism) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

==CFD Signatories== - Read this from the above, "An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."" I suggest that you retract your accusation.
- Also, this 03:25, 12 July 2007 Radiant! (Talk | contribs) (47,039 bytes) (→Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" - yawn) is an edit summary an admin should never make -- it is dismissive and violates the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Neither should you write: that was predictable) -- that violates civil, appears to be an ad hom, and is ascribing motives (apparently without ever having read WP:Canvass.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, the point is to resolve the issue. >Radiant< 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Righhhht, and we resolve issues by using snarky edit summaries. Yep, that makes total sense. @@

And then there's the fact that your allegation of canvassing was asinine. Yep, that too resolves issues. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch it Jim. There seem to be a bunch of admins who ban editors who show any uncivil behavior towards them, but ignore others who are uncivil. Orangemarlin 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's known as a conflict of interest violation (not that I'm wikilawyering here). Besides, I'd say it's pretty hard to charge me with a vio of WP:CIVIL when one has violated same in one's editing summary, when one has ascribed motives, and when one has falsely accused an editor of canvassing so that one can try to stop an inconvenient DRV that just might show that the admin who closed the CFD did so improperly. And by the way, all these above are known as "observations" -- I think they're still allowed here.

Oh, and note that I called the action asinine, not the admin. Ad rem isn't the same as ad hom, in fact their not even close.

And beware, OM, you might be accusing some admins of having a penchant for partiality and playing favourites.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've watched two good editors banned by Banno (interesting name now that I think about it) and Radiant for very specious reasons. But they ignore the vast incivility and down right personal attacks by those they favor. I don't get it!! At least be consistent. If you ban one person for incivility, hell ban them all. If you let one go for the same offense, then what makes one banned and the other not? I confoozled. Orangemarlin 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You just caught the Banno pun? It reminds me of umprires who have different strike zones from batter to batter. Usually a sign of turbatio mentis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And of course, those umpires toss players who argue that the strike zones are different. Yeah, I'm a bit dense. I completely missed the Banno humor. Duh.Orangemarlin 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say your first sentence sums it up nicely. Of course, what's even worse is when the ump follows the player back to his dugout to see if he's still griping -- that was a favourite tactic of Joe West. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:46, 17 July 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)

Understanding WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts are surely not more than trhee. --Abu badali 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a warning, as in stop before you get there. Capisce? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what part of "even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule" this great genius did not understand? --Filll 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably all of it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

You are in violation of WP:POINT with this nonsense: . Keep in mind that escalation often turns ugly, and fake shields don't work against reality. Ponder. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how do you see that edit as a point. I'm curious about your reasoning. --Abu badali 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You just happened, at random, to pick 7 or 8 images uploaded by Kenosis for deletion? Yeah, OK, and that bridge in Brooklyn is still for sale. Bottom line is, you don't like to lose and went after Kenosis' pics in retraliation. Why? Because he made you look the fool. Yep, that's my take on it, and I think the take of a number of other editors as well. Remember, revenge is a dish best served cold. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at random. I nominated them because I knew they have been uploaded under the exact same failed reasoning of Image:Oneill.jpg. Please, be informed that, from now on, I may choose to ignore your comments if you feel in the right to ignore WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm still wondering what you meant to say with that line about "fake shields against reality" (did you mean real-world dangers?). --Abu badali 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim just read (and spoke) my mind, and now nice of you to confirm it. It's obvious retaliation. Odd nature 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, definite retaliation.

You know Abu, AGF works both ways, and civility is far more than how one speaks or writes. If you stab someone in the back while cooing gentle nothings in their ear, are you being civil?

If you look at your page and ponder the shield comment for a bit I'm sure the neurons and synapses will fire and the light shall be upon you. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:30, 24 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)

Question for you

Do you think either of the comments you made on Talk:Denialism were helpful or constructive? If so, what do you think they accomplished? If not, were they a mistake? Ben Hocking 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a comprehension problem? You do not like criticism (unless it's wrapped up in nice fluffy slippers), and like too many editors you cry foul when you are criticised.

Now, a question for you: Do you think a majority of your comments on the same page have been constructive? They've seemed just a bit tendentious and stupid to me. What have you accomplished? Nothing except wasting bytes and time. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I fully appreciate constructive criticism. Do you have any? I do believe that most of my comments have been constructive. It's interesting that you think my comments are stupid when I'm not the one contradicting myself (that was the person I was replying to who, when confronted with the evidence of this, suddenly changed topics to Abbas vs. Palestian nationalism). Also, how in the world do you figure that my comments were tendentious? Seeing as how you and I probably agree on far more than we disagree, what bias exactly do you think I was showing?

Now, I'll admit that I occasionally cross the line. And, when I do so, I admit it. If you do not acknowledge your mistakes then you give off the impression that you are no wiser today than you were yesterday. Ben Hocking 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Very philosophical. How does changing a topic (assuming that to be the case) become self-contradictory? Besides, Guettarda is a highly respected editor and admin on Misplaced Pages, and I've bever really seen him screw up an assertion or argument. Now, given that RevolutionaryLuddite is a clear POV-pusher, your defense of him speaks volumes about your own judgment, POV and motives. Hence, any edits you make are placed under a microscope and viewed with a skeptical eye.

In the meantime, yes I agree with you regarding admitting a mistake, we all make them, although I don't know that admission of an error necessarily equates to an increase in wisdom.

BTW, see WP:NOT: wikipedia is not an advertising service . &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Self-contradictory is when you re-assert "Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial" (and put it in bold, no less) immediately after quoting "In his thesis, Abbas wrote that the estimated number of Jews killed during World War II was 'less than one million.'" from the Malone article. Changing the topic is a typical strategy that some people employ when their contradictions are pointed out to them. "Guettarda is a highly respected editor and admin on Misplaced Pages, and I've never really seen him screw up an assertion or argument." Now you have. (Granted, pay enough attention to me, and you'll also see me screw up assertions, arguments, and hosts of other things. No one is perfect. I do appreciate people admitting when they've made a mistake, though.)
• "Now, given that RevolutionaryLuddite is a clear POV-pusher, your defense of him speaks volumes about your own judgment, POV and motives."
  • I don't take that as a given. He has a POV, as do you and I. He has not "pushed" that POV, but has engaged in civil debate. In fact, the very problem is that you (and others) do take it as a given. As you've obviously already read my user page, I would presume that my Misplaced Pages philosophy should explain exactly why I would defend him. I'm glad to hear that my defense of him speaks volumes about my own judgment, POV, and motives, but I'm afraid that perhaps you don't speak the right language to understand it. In short, I think you assume far too much — about me and about Revolutionaryluddite.
• As for my link to my Mom's web-site and services, WP:NOT mentions articles, not user pages. If you can show me where it forbids that, then I will remove it. Ben Hocking 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My horizons are quite sufficiently expanded, and I see the shades of gray better than most. In this case, I noted the reliability of the source, a subject that you have not touched on. If the source is reliable, then Guettarda is wrong, but, if it is not then he is right. That was the point he was making. Address that and you can clear up the issue.

AGF is a crock and a Utopian dream divorced from reality and human experience. I assume neutral faith (shades of gray and all that). Good faith is something one earns. Hence there are editors with whom I disagree and yet respect, and there are other editors with whom I agree but don't respect. Now, is that enough volume for you? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You claim to see shades of gray, but I wonder why you think RL is a POV-pusher, if it's not for the fact that he doesn't agree with you. As for the source being reliable, although it is a reasonable objection, that was not Guettarda's claim. He stated (two or three times) that " the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial". He never addressed the reliability of the George Mason University (Malone) article, the quote which I used being excerpted from Israel National News, which is almost the definition of a biased source (presumably, however, one could verify this by actually reading Abbas' thesis). Of course, the Malone article also uses information from the Anti-Defamation League. Guettarda made a patently false statement, however, as it wasn't the reliability he was talking about. That you've tried to change the subject to its reliability suggests to me that you realize this is true, but for some reason foreign to me, you are unwilling to admit it. If you want a second example of an error of his, check out his comment, and then try it on that article. The first use of the word "denial" does not occur until the ADF reference, which is not the one I quoted.

As for AGF being a crock, I'm afraid you've proven why it's not. If you start with neutral faith, then one misstep takes that person into negative faith via your "earning" analogy. From then on, it seems that you're inclined to try to find something wrong with them, putting them further and further into negative faith. (Vicious circle, see also). Has it occurred to you that perhaps there's a reason for that policy other than Utopian dreams? Ben Hocking 21:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You really need to learn to read between the lines I think; Guettarda's point was pretty clear: reliability was the issue, and I've not changed the subject at all (although I will now: you seem to make the accusation of rebus mutatis frequently: are you aggravated that you can't control people's minds like you can the “mind” of a computer? Perhaps your research on the CA3 region of the hippocampus will resolve that thorny issue.) Alas, people are not mere computers, and they will not respond exactly as you’d like them to, and their thought process will not be yours.

As for RL, his edits speak for themselves – once he tried to weaken the creationism portion of denialism, he showed his true colors. Also, his “don’t write to me because I can’t stop writing back” was very reminiscent of an habitator sub ponte.

Neutral faith simply means just that: neutral. Having to earn “good faith” or respect, or conversely, earning bad faith is the way the world works. Yes, we could all put on blinders and pretend everything is sunshine and Falernian wine; that people are all good, have good intentions and are pure and honest; and that by living in perfect harmony we can create a jingle for a soft drink. And by the way, I don’t have to look for flaws or negative items – they smack me in the face.

The reason for AGF is simple: the AGF'ers want to be nice to other people because they fear others not being nice to them; a nice way of avoiding mutually assured destruction no doubt, but also utterly self-serving and yet self-defeating, no no doubt quite pleasing to the mental homunculi. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'll just never understand you and vice-versa. It certainly doesn't help when you use Latin expressions that are somewhat obscure, including one that Google has never heard of. However, I'm going to try just a little more. First of all, in re-reading Guettarda's post, it seems that I did take him out of context. Interestingly enough, his third quoting of himself doesn't show that, but if you look at the very first time he said it, you can see that he does acknowledge that Malone's article discusses Holocaust denial as it applies to Abbas. Why you two couldn't just pull up that one line instead of assuming bad faith is beyond me. Let me say it again, so it's not missed on you, I made a mistake in selective quoting. (After I'm finished here, I'll say the same thing on that page.) That said, you're making just as big a mistake with RL (although I doubt you'll admit it). Look again at his arguments against the inclusion of Creationism as a form of Denialism. Look at all of them and don't selectively pick and choose what you want to believe. His complaint is that Theistic Evolution is not Denialism (which is backed up by Kenosis — is he also a POV-pusher now?), and that Theistic Evolution is listed as a form of Creationism. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you can admit you were wrong about him, you can begin to see the mistake of assuming "neutral faith". Ben Hocking 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the joys of being a linguist who is fluent in Latin is that you can just make up your own Latin terms. No, that probably doesn't help comprehension, but habitator sub ponte sounds much nicer than troll. (See, I can be "nice"...sort of).

As for you, I've never assumed any bad faith on your part, I've just questioned what you've said -- although defending RL does bother me given his edits. But, I'm sure that my defense of Guettarda bothered you for a while. OK, so we're past that now, and I don't think you have any "bad" intentions, and I respect you for admitting an error.

As for theistic evolution, I'd say that's more hedging one's bets than it is denialism -- in a sense one denies that either premiss, creationism and evolution, is fully right, while still accepting the scientific evidence without "damning" one's soul. Kind of hypocritical, but so be it. However, that wasn't the only change RL made. Had it been, I could have supported him. Who knows, I might one day support him on something -- I haven't written him off.

I'll never see any error with assuming neutral faith: it's stood me in good stead throughout my life -- I assume nothing initially, thus my "take" on someone or his/her actions is objective rather than subjective. I find subjectivity to be a bore, and emotionalism to be a chore. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"As for theistic evolution, I'd say that's more hedging one's bets than it is denialism" — then we agree completely. "God of the gaps" being the term that I've heard most frequently to describe it. Um, Deus ex lacuna or something like that — would you guess I've never had Latin?!? (You would? While we're at it — rebus mutatis? The closest I've got is "thus change".) Ben Hocking 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see y'all have stopped sub-ponteificating about AGF – it's my weapon of choice. Rebus? Is he no thon detective fella frae Tollcross? Anyway, there's more to theistic evolution than might be surmised – while searching for info on the Revd. Baden Powell, I found this essay, if you skip down to page 10 there's discussion of early to mid 19th century evolutionists aiming to reconcile nature, God, and man with a "new" natural theology. Old Powell had some interesting ideas there... dave souza, talk 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we all agree on theistic-evolution. (Now if we had a category on "Hypocrisy"...) My biggest problem with the God of the Gaps (aside from its inherent hypocrisy) is that it's irrational ... but then so are theism and atheism. OK, maybe my mind is more computer-like. Check my hippocampus.  :)

Rebus mutatis just means "changing the subject" (rebus is plural dative of res "thing, matter, subject" -- the Romans prefered that res was in the plural much of the time. Weird.) I'll have to read the essay, but I also want to read Ben's theses...my reading list is getting backed up. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The hippocampus is very uncomputer-like, although it is implicated in the quasi-logic problem known as transitive inference. It is also used for other configural learning problems, as well as trace conditioning, spatial learning, and episodic memory. FWIW, I'm fairly certain that my hippocampus is defective, as I have both poor spatial learning and episodic memory — I can't say that I've ever really tested my trace conditioning or configural learning abilities. (Great, now I have to create articles on transitive inference — loosely deciding that if A>B and B>C then A>C — and configural learning — which involves choosing responses based not just on the stimuli but on how those stimuli are configured with respect to each other as in transitive inference. Perhaps later today when I've got several simulations running.) Ben Hocking 12:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect excuse for me going off topic. After a saddening day trying to help the victims of a petition subsequently retitled Dissent from Darwinism, the Beeb puts on When the Levees Broke and I end up watching it past my bedtime. A bad day to have empathy, must go and tend my electric sheep now. .. dave souza, talk 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my hippocampus is OK then ... I do very well with those items. In any case, the brain is a fascinating piece of hardware. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Me thought it was wetware? Hope that's not Wehrkraftzersetzung. ... dave souza, talk 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we refer to it as wetware. Of course, my specialty is reproducing that wetware in silico (there's a Latin phrase I'm comfortable with), using software. Ben Hocking 12:37, 30 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)

removed polemical statement, per WP:UP#NOT

Hi, I removed the mission not accomplished banner at the top of this page per our user-page policy. Please refrain from campaigning for/against polemical issues on Misplaced Pages :). Thanks! -- lucasbfr 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one way of starting an edit war over a factual statement that's only arguably a polemic. In a spirit of compromise I've commented out all but the bare facts, this is something that it would be civil to discuss before implementation. It's already been suggested that you can raise your concerns at WP:AN if you don't feel able to discuss this with Jim in a civil way. .. dave souza, talk 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Matter is now being discussed at WP:ANI. JoshuaZ 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This was totally uncivil. I disagree with you Josh (though you weren't the one being uncivil). OrangeMarlin 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken Misplaced Pages for some kind of forum for free speech. That's not it at all- Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? And you are....whom? Are we going to apply your criteria across the board? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm a Misplaced Pages editor, who else would I be? Your message can easily be seen as soapboxing, which we don't really want to encourage. Since it adds no value to the encyclopedia, you should probably remove it. Friday (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You went from must to should? Do pictures of Peeps add anything to Wiki? No. Do I care that you have them on your page? No. If I put that banner (or even a verbal equivalent) on an article I'd hope you'd remove it and smack me upside the head for being a total ass. But on a user page? Also, no offense, but "can easily be seen" really doesn't mean a heck of a lot from a logical standpoint as it's inference, which is somewhat unreliable (unless we're talking community standards and "I can't describe pornography but I know what it is when I see it"). Obviously, we disagree, and to be honest, I don't really care about the banner. Had lucasbfr not summarily removed it and gave me a cogent argument why he felt it was offensive, I'd've removed it myself. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember ever suggesting that you must remove it. I think you should remove it. It's far from the worst misuse of user space I've seen, but that still doesn't make it a good thing. I can understand how it's annoying to have people messing with your page, except it's not actually your page. But, it's a small issue and I've explained my opinion, so I'll leave it at that. Friday (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• For crying out loud, Jim, will you please stop asking people who they are? Who would you like them to be, Jimbo Wales? Has it struck you that if you don't know someone, it's not necessarily because they're so obscure (Friday is a well-known and respected admin) — but it could be because you're not equally familiar with all parts of the site? That said, if the banner on this page isn't now the way you want it — I have tried in vain to make head or tail of the history — I'll be happy to restore it, if you'll tell me which version you'd like. I think the people who've been removing/rewriting it are in violation of WP:OFFICIOUS. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

Can't I even be sarcastic anymore? Sheesh. (I get your point, I get it...but two things on AN/I in one day is a bit much -- BTW, I would've asked Wales the same question in the mood I'm in (yes, bad, smacks own wrist)). And I know Friday is cool now having rec'd a very nice reply from him.

The version I had before Lucasbfr deleted it would be cool. Thanks, Bish ... You and Puppy are the only two who can chill me out. Maybe I'll hire the two of you as my gurus.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally dislike the ongoing censorship. Look how much time has been wasted in one editor's jihad against the banner on Jim's page. Maybe lucasbfr should expend this much effort actually improving articles? OrangeMarlin 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think lucasbfr made a bad judgement call in this instance, but in general he's a good, hardworking editor and admin and I'd let it slide. MastCell 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please check if that's the right version, Jim, and I hope you like my new essay. I'm planning to guide WP:OFFICIOUS towards becoming official policy. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish, it's perfect. Now to read your essay. Do you mind if I comment on it?

MastCell, I was going to let it slide anyway, but then it got to ANI...too much fun for one day.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, improve it, it's a wiki! Bishonen | talk 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps Jim62sch should also spend his effort improving articles, instead of putting polemical statements on his user talk page? The argument "go write articles instead" is simply not going to persuade anyone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the all-seeing thought police is thinking of removing the long statement by Sun Myung Moon that forms most of a user page I came across recently? From my viewpoint it's a useful indicator of whence said user is coming, but sure looks like polemic to me. ... dave souza, talk 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

CBM, thank you for your input. I have three FA's to my credit and countless GA's. How are you making out? Funny too that people chose "polemical" to describe the banner given the etymology of polemic. Irony can be so sweet. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do just fine, thanks. You seem to be avoiding my question of how you think this banner advances the mission of the encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion it performs the same function as other user page statements, and indicates whence Jim cometh, Now as to your endless questioning, you think that advances the mission of the encyclopedia? ... dave souza, talk 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to make a calm statement of his beliefs if he wished to do so. Instead he declared his opinion in a style designed to attract attention - little wonder it arrived. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding my question. .. dave souza, talk 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I didn't remove the material from the user page, but I can't see any purpose for it being there. I think there is some benefit to the encyclopedia to reduce the amount of this stuff in use space, as it only detracts from our purposes. Unfortunately, that comes down to editors having suitable self restraint in expressing themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CBM, Jim has a wikibreak notice on his page. He's been templated, which erupted into a huge mess involving lots of drama; and now this. It has been resolved. I think Jim's had enough stress tacked on his plate. Please go find something productive to do; you have repeatedly made your position clear, and continuing to post it is edging into harassment. KillerChihuahua 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunantly, I don't share your thoughts on that comment being harrasment KC, trying to make his position clear probably, but harrassment is a bit of an overjudgement. — Moe ε 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I did say "edging into" and Carl has dropped it so I think we're done with this one. KillerChihuahua 07:36, 31 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)

Image:Bjlata1.jpg

Hi,

Since you are normally quite a sensible admin, I was very distressed to see your comment in this discussion. Renominations after hard closes at DRV are standard practice, as I'm sure you've seen many times before. Moreover, my close at DRV was conditioned on the relisting because the fair-use rationale is still an open issue -- only the bias of the previous IfD closer allowed the undeletion. If I weren't a calm fellow, I'd be inclined to reverse my DRV undeletion decision, close the IfD, and redelete the thing. It is clear to me now that the supporters of this image have little idea how process works -- and process was the major reason for their success at DRV. Please do not encourage misinformation with your comment, which I must assume was a cursory mistake. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Xoloz, I know that IfD's after DRV's are typical, but the process bothers me -- it looks too much like seeking revenge. I'm also inclined to think that both the IfD and DRV processes are broken. I see a neverending debate, dispute, fight between deletionists and inclusionists with no one taking the middle ground. I also see a lack of knowledge regarding copyright law. I'm aware that this is a sensitive issue, but I'd like to see some sense go wih the sensitivity.

BTW, I know that you're very dedicated to this project, so please don't infer that I'm criticising you; I'm criticising the system. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure... I can understand your concerns. I'd prefer you'd express them as "Keep" (boy, I wish I could speedy keep, but that's not currently accepted practice.) This line of reasoning would keep the newbies from thinking I was doing something nuts, when in fact -- however much you disagree with it -- it is the norm, at least for the DRV commenters and closers. When they supporting overturning, they expect a relisting... if they didn't have that expectation, their calculation (and my closing) might be different.

I overturned Quaddell because he was wrong to close a debate in which he commented. I believe his closure, on the merits, may be correct. (Aside here: like you, I know the law permits a more liberal reading of fair use than Misplaced Pages generally admits; I also know, though, that Misplaced Pages is within its rights to limit its potential liability by being more strict with fair use than is required by law. Quadell's decision may have been correct in this latter sense.)

Had I known that the relisting would be side-tracked by odd commenters trying to attack me for following standard DRV practice, I would have weighted "result over process" more heavily, and closed the DRV differently. Process is a good thing when it leads discussants to examine issues fully in the interest of fairness -- it becomes a bad thing if discussants follow tangential issues (PROTEST THE SYSTEM!) and thereby abuse their opportunity to speak further on the merits of the issue.

I appreciate your kindness, and take nothing personally. I must emphasize, though, that I have no stake in this IfD, this image, or in any users involved. I wouldn't be shocked if I miffed Quadell by reversing him -- in a way, I gave a "victory" to the "other side." To suggest that my relisting afterwards is vengeful plainly misunderstands my obvious motives -- I undeleted the thing in the first place!

(As an aside, I used to specify these procedural nominations by abstaining when writing them, but User:Mackensen, User:JzG, and Tony Sidaway objected to that fiercely for their own process-wonking reasons. In placating them, it now seems that others appear to find me vengeful. It is impossible to craft due process that won't make someone mad, I'm beginning to appreciate, but I still firmly believe that due process is essential to any massive collective human endeavor -- unlike some people...

Best wishes, Xoloz 20:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you chaps getting along well, politeness pays off. Was just struck by the coincidence of just having watched When the Levees Broke and having been impressed how deferential to authority your young folks were, even when repeating Dick's words back to him :) .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Xoloz, you were chastised for recusing yourself? Unreal. You do the ethical thing and someone bitches for vague policy reasons? Again, unreal. I'll clarify my vote. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I also thought it was rather "unreal", yes; their rationale was that an "X for deletion" debate couldn't open unless the nominator requested deletion (boldface) of the article. The discussion began ages ago, but the latest round sprung up on my talk (now Archive 15, heading "DRV") and proceeded from there to Tony's talk and an AfD. After Mackensen - active ArbCom-er and frequent opponent of my brand of "common sense" -- chipped in, I gave up and began doing pro forma deletes on all my relistings. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are times when I wonder if Misplaced Pages is worth all of the trouble. Deep down, I know it is, but the officious nature of some of the decisions makes me want to scream. I've run across a number of people who refuse touse Misplaced Pages simply because of the bickering and silly decisions that are based either on whims or an overreliance on minor points of policy; policy that should really be changed. OK, end of rant! Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:06, 2 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)

Care to explain?

When the images were removed from the articles per the IFD there was no need for the fair use rationale on the image description page. -Nv8200p talk 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(Moved message from your userpage, where it seems to have been placed in error. ElinorD (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

I really don't understand what you see here is wrong? I closed the IFD and to follow up, I removed the fair use rationale just as I would remove the image from the article if I had deleted the image. I have no clue what the conspiracy theory is here. -Nv8200p talk 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory? Maybe it's as simple as no one buying your cleanup theory.

Also, why is Elinor moving things around on user pages that are not her own? (Rhetorical).

Non-rhetorical: how much copyright law do you feel you understand? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, your harrassment charge is ridiculous: you wanted to be an admin and as such you're liable to be criticised, especially when you appear to be gaming the system. Crying harrassment does not exculpate the failure to follow consensus, the apparent disdain for Misplaced Pages's procedures, the adamant use of misguided personal judgment and the lack of clear understanding of copyright law. (cross-posting this) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Hi Jim62sch; Re , Image policy is a contentious issue, and intelligent design attracts people with strong opinions and irreconcilable assumptions. Experienced contributors like you can do a lot of good by setting an example of reason and civility. Please be careful to discuss things in a respectful and civil way. Tom Harrison 12:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see: It's akin to sarcasm, it's called humour with a bite. I'll be nicer when other people stop being clinically stupid. Thanks for your message. Odd though that you protected right after the images were deleted -- even though there was clearly no edit war in progress. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You might consider that Tom Harrison's comment is the third comment visible on this talk page where someone points out that an edit of yours might have been ill considered. I am perfectly willing to discuss any disagreements we have, but comments that seem to indicate I am "clinically stupid" do nothing to promote dialogue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not necessarily referring to you, was I? I was referring to the comments and the apparent mind-set of a certain group of editors who are clearly devoted to removing images for the hell of it and, in my opinion, lessening the value of Misplaced Pages by not giving a damn about the article itself, but rather about some rather arcane rules that have little or no relation to logic or international law. If you fit in that group, or feel that you fit in that group, then so be it. Had I been specifically referring to you, I would have used your name (although, that would clearly be a direct ad hom, and I tend to avoid those). In addition "being stupid" indicates the state of an action, does it not?

Also, Tom is entitled to his opinion. However, I find it to be rather interesting that he leaves his warning after having protected a page that clearly needed no protection. See, that's a bigger issue. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Tom. At least he didn't protect the page on his favoured version mid-edit war, and didn't cite BLP spuriously. Be happy with the improvement in his behaviour. As for scolding you about your behaviour...well, the fact that he habitually abuses his admin tools doesn't mean that he's forbidden to comment on the behaviour of others. But, given the source, feel free to point and laugh. Guettarda 23:52, 13 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)

Cover art & 'critical commentary' in Intelligent design

Hi, as you've restored two of these images, could you take a look at my ideas in Talk:Intelligent design#Sample 'critical commentary' boxes. As I'm not edit-warring anybody (unlike the image-deletion-warriors, I'm not so quixotic as to think that doing so against the consensus actually achieves anything), it seems I'm flying under everybody's radar at the moment. If we can get these warriors out of our hair in a manner that also improves the article, then I'm all for it. Hrafn42_Stalk 04:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news about the EEC and MS, eh! p.s. you should have mail. .. dave souza, talk 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Darned Euros picking on a friendly American company. LOL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn, I think I arrived late to the discussions on your idea -- my points had already been covered. Sorry. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Never you mind, my lad. To cheer you up, have just found that your National Historic Landmark the Delta Queen was built just up the river from here 81 years ago, and we're now having a whip round to save her! .. dave souza, talk 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty cool -- I had stupidly assumed that boats of that type were built in the US. A good day is one in which you learn something; a great day is one in which you both learn something and learn that you need to change your assumptions. It's a great day, thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it surprised me when it came on the news this evening. It's the same shipyard that built the Cutty Sark. .. dave souza, talk 19:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of whiskey... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:54, 19 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)

User talk pages

I'm glad to see you think:"Well, this is certainly a bit out of control. Filll (or anyone) can format something on any page". I'm sure you will now support my right to edit my talk page as I see fit. That was your point wasn't it?Tstrobaugh 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What did I say above that you don't like? If you think "it really doesn't concern you. It's beginning to look like Wikistalking if you're going around checking/critiquing/finding fault with his innocuous edits" is being Mr. nice guy I'd hate to see you mad at me. And this "to smear someone, which certainly appears to be your intent here" so smearing is wrong? Then why did you say this "Besides, being a tablehead, I'm sorry, member of Mensa,"? Actually the organizations I belong to consider Mensa to be the low IQ group so I'm not even offended if that was your intent. How about this "taking a cheap swipe at someone"? Is that wrong? See my previous reply. "Just some helpful advice " Actually I wouldn't take any advice from someone that talks out of both sides of their mouth, not an ad hominem as I've documented above. If you ever want to have a real discussion without the testosterone let me know, see that's me being nice. But then you didn't really mean it when you said it did you? Try me, I really mean it.Tstrobaugh 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If Mensa is not up to your snuff try Prometheus Society. Let's separte some things. Let's deal with one issue at a time for clarities sake. What rankles you more, my talk page or the IC stuff? Pick one and I'll address it. Tstrobaugh 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What IQ test did you take? The WAIS III has a cieling of 165. You may want to try Mega Society then, way out of my league, although I know quite a few members from the other groups. As for your question "what precisely is it that "they" are not understanding?" Since I am not a "they" I don't see how I could answer that. Perhaps a better place to start (as I've already stated my postion many times and can be easily looked up), what do you understand my position to be? Not that your a "they" or anything.Tstrobaugh 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that you are in Category:Wikipedians_against_censorship, surely you take this position whether you agree with what the person is saying or not. I mean just for logical consistency if not for fairness.Tstrobaugh 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"OK, so is the entire argument covered by the stuff that was moved to your user page? I'll look through it" It is all at Talk:Irreducible_complexity/Archive_04#ID_is_not_Science. As for the IQ, you really can't say what your IQ is if you don't know what test you took, some tests have standard deviations of 15, some 16 and some even 24 and odd numbers like 15.6.Tstrobaugh 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, odd numbers like 15.6. Yes, very odd.--Filll 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes odd in the sense that it's not a whole number like the others, as in strange, not mathematically odd. See Odd if you are having trouble with that. What is your point? Tstrobaugh 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am just mentally inadequate compared to some here. Oh well.--Filll 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really ans Jim says we all make mistakes, heart matters more than mind. Be truthful and say what is in you heart and you will have understanding. Understanding is the key to communication, not sniping.Tstrobaugh 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. Maybe we'll get somewhere. You say:"the judge's comments are germane in that they explain his reasoning in finding ID (and it's component parts) to be creationism." Why would the judges reasoning be important? Why is the ruling important scientifically? I don't think it meets Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources criteria:"A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". How is the judge "authoritative" in the area of Philosophy of science? Secondly there is a semantic problem with quoting the Judge as a citation for "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science," How can the Judge speak for the "scientific community"? Thirdly, as I've repeatedly pointed out, if judges rulings are scientifically valid, then can Scopes Trial be used as a citation in this article? Thanks for your consideration in this matter.Tstrobaugh 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not post this nonsense anywhere. It is just an effort to create a fight. The judge in the Scopes trial did not rule on any scientific issues, did he? The Dover trial judge did summarize the scientific testimony and philosophy of science testimony in his ruling and as such his ruling is a valid tertiary source of what was said by scientists who are authority figures, testifying under oath. So it is an extremely good source. But this is just further tendentious baiting and pointless time-wasting.--Filll 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Do not post this nonsense anywhere. It is just an effort to create a fight." Who's trying to start a fight?Tstrobaugh 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're not willing or able to respond to these specific points I've made perhaps you would be willing to post them back to IC talk patge so that other can answer them. I'm sure you wouldn't want any censorship going on, like how they keep archiving anything I say to get it off the page, even though my first edits where finally accepted (removal of phrase "intelligent design creationism"). I'll admit I'm wrong about all three of the above points as soon as someone can enlighten me.Tstrobaugh 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Judge Jones needed to determine whether teaching ID in public school violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In order to do so, he needed to decide, based on the preponderance of the evidence, whether ID was science or creationism. In reviewing the evidence, and applying the Lemon test, the Endorsement test, and case law from Edwards v. Aguillard, Jones determined that ID was in fact creationism, a finding that the DI chose not to appeal (likely knowing that they would lose). Hence, absent further cases, ID is considered to be creationism for purposes of public education.

Re: The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science: Again, based on the preponderance of the evidence presented in the court, Jones accepted as fact and then summarized some of that evidence in his ruling, evidence that clearly supported the above statement.

In Scopes, Judge Raulston did not rule on the issue of science (in fact he refused to hear much of the scientific evidence as being not germane to the trial), he ruled on whether Tennessee statute had been violated -- which it had been. Hence, as he did not address the issue of science, he was adjudicating in the same manner as would a traffic judge in upholding or dismissing a speeding citation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I will note that Scopes was a jury trial and the jury was not able to hear the vast majority of the scientific testimony. I do not know if the judge in Scopes wrote up anything after summarizing the trial. I do not think so, except for a perfunctory report. The Dover trial was not a jury trial, so it was quite different. There was also precedent to go on in the Dover situation, based on several previous important court decisions in the area.--Filll 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

There's no meltdown. What I argured for, and was repeatedly attacked for supporting, was, in fact, the same conclusion Arbcom came to. That I was immediately attacked for defending the privacy of editors, by a group who don't think editors need privacy because they lost of relinquished theirs, should be more concern for you. ThuranX 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking you missed the point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:19, 20 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)

Aloha, Jim

Just a brief request for clarification: You state that I have "indeed been problematic at times". May I ask when and how? Is it just the comments made directly after the block? If there was some other problem, did you ever discuss it with me? E kala mai, my memory is not that great. :-) If I have been truly problematic, I would like to know, so I can try and be better in the future. If you wouldn't mind answering here, as to not split discussion, that would be appreciated. Mahalo nui loa, Jim. --Ali'i 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It was some of the comments: they were just a bit strong, verging on nasty (like I should talk) and seemed out of place -- overall, though, I should have used a word other than problematic -- how about argumentative (a trait that I don't see as being bad)? I'll change the word if you're cool with that. BTW: please keep writing Hawai'ian -- I've never studied it, but from looking into the meaning of Mahalo (I did know what it meant, but not nui loa) I see that Hawai'ian is a very complex, agglutinative language. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ʻAʻole pilikia. :-) I just wanted to make sure I was trying my best and not actually being problematic. While I'd appreciate a change to "argumentative", it's up to you. I was more concerned with a possible faulty underlying behavior rather than a faulty word on a random page. Again, mahalo. A hui hou. --Ali'i 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to argumentative with a note that it was no biggie because I can be argumentative too.  :) You're not problematic, that really was just poor word usage on my part. E kala mai. (I hope that's right)

"ʻAʻole pilikia." -- neat way of saying "no worries" -- I'll need to remember that so I can use it. :) A hui hou. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:43, 22 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)

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:42, 29 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)

Cleanup?

You placed a cleanup tag on the article DAV Jawahar Vidya Mandir, Shyamali. I would be grateful if you can please explain on the articles talk page which points on the article need to be addressed.

Mð¥ðñK Ãßhï§h€K 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

Hi Jim. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations!

Hi Jim, Thank you. I see that you understand other languages therefore, I will say Gracias and Merci. Tony the Marine 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No matter though. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Celt

Hi, I see you have advanced Latin. Can I ask you to check the improvements I made to the etymological note at Celt (tool) please? I quite often need a Latin expert to confirm my edits, so I would be glad to have you as a contact if you are into this stuff. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits. Anytime you need assistance or a second set of eyes, feel free to ask. :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bear you in mind then. If you ever need me to return the favour with (medieval) German... --Doric Loon (talk) 13:41, 9 December 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)

Possibly unfree Image:Enkinintu.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Enkinintu.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B (talk • contribs) 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? I'm sure the artist who's been deed for millennia will be suing us for copyright infringement. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Clearlightalbum.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clearlightalbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted for reasons unknown. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "scheiss"?

And could you go take a look at the talk page? I am not sure if you examined the diff in detail, or not. It was a massive change, and in my understanding, original research /synthesis. Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you do not know, since you are clearly the smartest person on WP. Even a moron like me knows.--Filll (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, now I get it. Thanks Filll for jarring my memory. Ra2007 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jim62sch, I think the issue has been resolved on the talk page. Ra2007 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it's time to break out Greek. ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

You need to fix your signature here: FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Pleas undo your revert. The statement is clearly disputed and unsourced, and should therefore be tagged as such until the issue has been settled. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh Jim, now you're on Guido's bad list. Better duck now, because he's going to make you eat ossewurst. Dank U well. OrangeMarlin 18:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)