→Please avoid escalating the dispute: who's escalating??????? |
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Please avoid escalating the dispute: instruction |
||
Line 509: | Line 509: | ||
:I must be missing something, but so is my wife: neither of us can see any violation here. Weird that VO can be an obnoxious prick, but I can't defend my honour. Weird, really weied. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
:I must be missing something, but so is my wife: neither of us can see any violation here. Weird that VO can be an obnoxious prick, but I can't defend my honour. Weird, really weied. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::As you will recall, I am the arbitrator who wrote the decision in your case. You are specifically and definitively instructed not to make any further reference on-wiki to Videmus Omnia's real-life activities or any disparaging reference to this (former) user. Issues concerning this user's departure message can be resolved without resort to these tactics. Any concern you may have with this instruction should be referred directly to the Arbitration Committee. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:49, 27 April 2008
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.
Top
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 Wikipedia en galego ten relativamente poucos artigos e queda moito por facer, pouco a pouco penso que imos mellorando na súa calidade, claro que iso o teñen que dicir o que nos visitan, saúdos dende Galicia.--Rocastelo 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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!
Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Jim! Please do not ever, for any reason, feel you need to take off your shoes for me. Unless you use odor-eaters, I am concerned what the consequences might be. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
...And never apologize for fixing my grammar, typing or spelling! I appreciate the assist! KillerChihuahua?!? 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
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. [1] 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 [2] Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)
-- "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." •Jim62sch• 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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? •Jim62sch• 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)
- Why did ye cross out the delaration info? •Jim62sch• 09:41, 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. •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 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)
- 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)
- 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. •Jim62sch• 20:10, 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. ;) •Jim62sch• 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.) ;) •Jim62sch• 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. ;) •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 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. :) •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review of [[Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg]]
- 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. •Jim62sch• 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! •Jim62sch• 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. ;) •Jim62sch• 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 Talk• Contributions 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I occasionally have my good days. ;) •Jim62sch• 16:52, 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)
Civility
Please see Wikipedia'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 (talk) (random) 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 Wikipedia, 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. •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 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 (talk) (random) 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. •Jim62sch• 22:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought for a new day
The sun is shining for the moment here, so after all that πολεμικως, Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag :) ...dave souza, talk 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Were you the only one to catch the irony? I laugh...so as not to cry. •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oooh, I like that one! :) •Jim62sch• 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? •Jim62sch• 23:46, 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).
- 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).
- "Everybody has gout." Bishonen | talk 10:38, 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)
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 (talk) 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. •Jim62sch• 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd A propos comments on ElinorD's talk page
Hi Jim. I noticed your comment on ElinorD's talk page (diff). With regards to commenting that, "the rest of Elinor's arguments are like so much effluvium wending its way to the cloacae", saying that someone's arguments are shit is not appropriate, no matter how you phrase it, no matter how many obscure of terms you use. Of course, you and I and everyone may certainly disagree with others' arguments, but it more civil and appropriate to say something like, "I disagree with your arguments", or even, "I strongly disagree with your arguments". There is no need to say what you said. I ask that you please reconsider your comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer to get to the matter at hand without pussyfooting around. I don't disagree with her arguments, I think they are as bogus as the "Twinkie defense" -- yes, that one fooled a lot of folks too. In other words, her arguments are coprotic.
- Look, I understand your concerns, but I think if we were all just a bit more blunt and honest we might get to the point much more quickly. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm in agreement with Jim here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 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. •Jim62sch• 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is big enough to afford two. :) •Jim62sch• 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design
Hi Jim, I don't regularly visit Intelligent design but noticed that some of your comments there were a little more sarcastic than necessary. That topic can get combative at times, so best not to turn up the temperature. Stay cool, man -- you'll score more points in the long run that way. Raymond Arritt 03:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Raymond, thanks. Yep, I get pretty pissed off -- it's this whole "not suffering fools" and "getting tired of proving that the sun is yellow for the nth time" thing. Personally, I find sarcasm to be an effective tool, but I understand your point. Oh, others who have posted here will likely be wondering why my response to you differs from my response to them: your comments were constructive, not accusatory. I respect that (even with my penchant for sarcasm ;) Take care. •Jim62sch• 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 Wikipedia 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. •Jim62sch• 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Probability of neo-Darwinian evolution
You commented on my talk page "So?"
In response:"Dealing eleven identical hands in a row wouuld exceed Dembski's Universal probability bound." Obviously probability is not one of your strong points. •Jim62sch• 23:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently you have little understanding of the magnitude of the Complex Specified Information involved relative to the size of the universe, the age of the universe and the physical limitations on the rate of the recombination of systems. It further appears that you have taken few if any courses in Physics or Thermodynamics. e.g. See Prof. Granville Sewell's A Second Look at the Second Law
DLH (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)In the real world it is sometimes much harder to say what the laws of probability predict than in a coin-flipping experiment; thus here it may be even harder to define and measure order, but sometimes it is easy. In any case, with 1023 molecules in a mole of anything, we can be confident that the laws of probability at the microscopic level will be obeyed (at least on planets without life) as they apply to all macroscopic phenomena; this is precisely the assumption---the only common thread---behind all applications of the second law. Everything the second law predicts, it predicts with such high probability that it is as reliable as any other law of science---tossing a billion heads in a row is child's play compared to appreciably violating the second law in any application. One critic [Jason Rosenhouse, "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics," The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 , number 4, 3-8, 2001] wrote "His claim that 'natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen' is pure gibberish. Does Sewell invoke supernatural forces to explain the winning numbers in last night's lottery?" But getting the right number on 5 or 6 balls is not extremely improbable, in thermodynamics "extremely improbable" events involve getting the "right number" on 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so balls! If every atom on Earth bought one ticket every second since the big bang (about 10^70 tickets) there is virtually no chance than any would ever win even a 100-ball lottery, much less this one. And since the second law derives its authority from logic alone, and thus cannot be overturned by future discoveries, Sir Arthur Eddington called it the "supreme" law of Nature [The Nature of the Physical World, McMillan, 1929].
The Russian author Alexey Melkikh critiques evolution in INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLE AND POSSIBLE DETERMINISTIC MECHANISM OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Alexey V. Melkikh, (Ural state technical university, Molecular physics chair,) Entropy 2004, 6, 223–232
It was shown that the probability of new species formation by means of random mutations is negligibly small. . . . The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2×10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2×10^9). . . . Thus, finally we have P = 10^57000000. This figure is vanishingly small. Therefore, a conclusion may be drawn that species could not be formed due to random mutations.
If a molecular machine, which controls the evolution (with reference samples assigned a priori as thermodynamic forces), does not exist, then the Darwin evolution contradicts to the second law, since it represents a macroscopically oriented (from the simple to the complex) fluctuation.
Perhaps you could write a formal rebuttal to Melkikkh for publication in that peer reviewed journal Entropy on how neo-Darwinian evolution or the Origin of Life can be explained by the probability of selecting less than eleven prescribed card hands in a row!DLH (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, the learned professor Granville Sewell. Could this be the famous entropy = disorder trick? [3][4] Also seems to be missing the point that natural selection is not random, but then what can we expect. . . . dave souza, talk 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I will note that this seems somewhat confused. The real mathematicians on which Dembski has based his work have reviewed it and stated that Dembski's work is complete nonsense and replete with errors. Also, numerical simulations of evolution seem to work fine; how could that be if they are so flawed and speciation is such an improbable event? In fact, many numerical techniques for solving engineering and applied mathematics problems are quite close to natural selection. If it is such a worthless principle, why is it useful for solving problems? How do you explain Prigogine's Nobel Prize by the way? And all the tens of thousands of professional thermodynamicists who seem to have no problem with the 2nd law and life?--Filll (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Besides, I wrote that a year-and-one-half ago -- it took this long to respond?
- In any case, both Filll and Dave seem to have nailed the head, or hit the nail on the head or whatever. The idea of natural selection being random (oh, and let's not forget unguided) seems only to afflict the minds of those who assume that the existence of H. sapiens has a meaning, a purpose, and that we are the pinnacle, the ne plus ultra of evolution (or life on earth (and doubtlessly everywere else), if you prefer). •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:17, 17 March 2008 (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 :). •Jim62sch• 18:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Noetic necropathy
Just noticed that one.[5] It's a keeper. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) •Jim62sch• 20:43, 10 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. •Jim62sch• 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe it
You have been named an editor to avoid by User:Sadi Carnot here. I bet you're so proud, you're in tears. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 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 Talk• Contributions 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 Talk 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'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 Talk• Contributions 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- To paraphase Sally Field, "he likes me, he really, really likes me". No ambivalence, even, I have recieved an honourable second. Hmm, I wonder what Sandy Georgia did to earn to honours. :)
- Raymond, don't fret, I'm sure another editor of Sadi's standing will honour you one day. ;) 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see that as arbcom's job. Why are you so hot to change the policy? No, I mean really, why are you so hot to change the policy? Yeah, yeah, AGF*. •Jim62sch• 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm interested in keeping things the way they are, and not introducing disruptive changes to the way Wikipedia 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. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Translation Request (la->English)
Hey there, I found your name under the category "Wikipedians who speak Latin". Anyway, I am in the process of working on an article about the Pont Notre-Dame in Paris. There is an inscription from Sannazaro under one of the bridges arches which reads: Jucundus geminos posuit tibi, Sequana, pontes Hune tu jure potes dicere pontificem See here and here for the original source.
Anyway, I don't speak Latin and cannot for the life of me figure it out...I was wondering if you could give me a translation if you have the time? Thanks much! 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here ya go, Lazuli,:
- "A happy man placed this twin bridge for you, O Sequana, a man whom you could rightly call 'bridge maker'" -- there's a pun on Pope in there. •Jim62sch• 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
witty riposte?
In case you did not see it, Jim, I left you this earlier: [6] Hope you see and enjoy it, cheers :-) Peter morrell 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That was good. :) Oddly, the play had never appeared on my radar -- and I say oddly as Latin is the perfect language for satire (cf Juvenal, "Difficile est saturam non scribere." (It is hard not to write satire.)). I've ditched the homeopathy article for a while as some of the pro-homeopathy editors are just stupid and definitely lack your expertise. Maybe you can whip them into shape? I hope. You know I'm no homeopathy supporter, but I do want to see a fair article and some of those editors are just grasping at straws and don't seem to really understand the concept at its basic level. It might help too if you an Filll got that dilution article done. Cheers. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No funny
Not funny, inflammatory, trolling. And having the chutzpah to post a link to my page. Shameless. Just because of that I will resume editing these articles. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? I am totally confusd here. What the heck is going on ?--Filll (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're not alone Filll. See [7]. Jossi, edit away: As of Thursday, I'd given up on homeopathy other than to drop by and look at the chaos from time to time. Enjoy the page. •Jim62sch•dissera! 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
They're in, then out, then they shake it all about
They do the hocky pocky then they ignore NPOV, that's what Wikipedia's all about :-) Shot info (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great, now I won't get that song out of my head. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh! :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Difference in presentation
Ok. Please explain how our presentations were different and the significance of the difference. You comments are greatly appreciated. Anthon01 (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's just note that Art is an NPOV warrior. Let's just note that Art isn't tendentious. Let's just note that Art's posts are logical. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Clearlightback.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Clearlightback.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Howard-Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Howard-Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- 4 in one day. I'm honoured. No point in arguing though, ve don't like ze piktures hier on Viki. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Bottom
Translation
Hi there, I see that you translate from Latin to English and was wondering if you could help me out with translating a motto whenever you have time. What do you make of "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti"? Thanks. --Gibmetal 77talk 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- No enemy/ can take (our/my) places/possesions/ remove (me/us) by assaulting -- although the intended meaning could be a tad different. Where's it from? •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's Gibraltar's motto. The translation in the article used to read "Conquered by no enemy" which can be found in many official websites. Not that long ago there was a discussion about the accuracy of the translation and it has now been changed to "No enemy shall expel us" referencing it to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment's website that also uses the motto. The latter seems to be closer to the translation you have provided. Regards --Gibmetal 77talk 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Either could be OK, except that no past tense is used, so the first seems doubtful. The current version does seem better. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help in making that clear, Jim! --Gibmetal 77talk 13:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope
This edit summary almost restores my faith in humanity. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:São Bernardo do Campo#"Pavlistarvm Terra Mater"
Talk:São Bernardo do Campo#"Pavlistarvm Terra Mater" & São Bernardo do Campo
|motto = Pavlistarvm Terra Mater
(Mother Land of the Paulists)
Your comments and observations please. Peter Horn 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I left an additional comment on the afore mentioned talk page. Peter Horn 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Vulgar Latin#The Vulgata Latina Your commente and observations please. Peter Horn 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Salve, I left another comment on said talk page. Vale, Peter Horn 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Salve, I left yet another comment on said talk page and it probably wont be the last one. Vale, Peter Horn 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Jim, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Avi, I realise my comment on the RfB was a bit terse and I apologise -- it was a bad day. Yes, participation in more RfA's would definitely be helpful, and probably the only thing you need to bolster your credentials. On a positive note, you are a very good writer (something I very much appreciate) and appear quite sensible and thoughtful. In other words, you're almost there! :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions
Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Already gave my opinion. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
rrl
I noticed you've done some serial red link removal. At least one case didn't seem to be called for. Please make sure your edits are in agreement with WP:REDLINK. —EncMstr 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm as serial red-link killer. What was the link I removed that you are questioning? Likely it was a mistake (which you would have been wise to assume to be the case.) Cheers. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then write the damned article, don't leave red-links all about the place. Seriously, if you're going to link something, at least make a damned stub. "We'll get a round tuit eventually" is simply sloppy scholarship in my opinion.
- Also, next time you feel I did something wrong see WP:DICK and WP:AGF before coppping a 'tude. Dig, dude? •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe I was uncivil, but if I came across that way, I apologize.
- I take it you didn't read Wikipedia:Red link? Or maybe you don't agree with it? Quoting:
- In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article.
- There seems to be no time limit to a red link, though there are several reasons for removing them. As far as creating a stub, there are entities (bots and people) who delete them. That's happened to enough of the stubs I have created that I don't do it unless it will be a reasonably complete stub in the first edit. Thoughts? —EncMstr 06:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't agree with it, but it's my nature not to agree with what I see as sloppiness (not on your part, mind you, but on the part of WP) in scholarship.
- Of course, you do raise an interesting point: if the stubs are deleted willy-nilly, then my argument is baseless in a certain sense, and yet points to a very real problem. Perhaps we should raise this issue somehow? I think we both want what's best for Wikipedia, so maybe some clarification of the somewhat subjective "plausibly sustain" might be needed.
- I too apologise if I've been snarky or uncivil, but I just had to get six stitches in my right hand due to my own clumsiness, so I'm just a tad irritable. But as Dr. Buddy Rydell noted, goosefrabaaaahhhhh. ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 07:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! But I am worried that now my hands are tied. Four proposals is too much to do at once Also, I have argued with some other editorsn and if I move from proposing something to 'dooing it they will accse me of pushing my own POV or trying to own the article,=. I think it is better if I lie low a bit to see what othersnsay. Maybe you have concrete ideas about how to move forward,k one step at a time - I hope you will lead!! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
I would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Human evolution. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have no tolerance for abject ignorance, stupidity, hatred, fanaticism or other related bosh, nonsence, drivel, piffle, garbage, effluvium, et cetera. Period. Ethics have more value than supposed "civility".
- SI: thanks, dude. :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
DAMN YOU!
Hey man why not join us at Expelled? Angry Christian (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is tomorrow OK? I've dabbled there, and you're doing a great job -- OK, now I'm damned, probably(?). ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anytime is always good for your input. Color me crazy but it would be cool for this thing to be shaped up before the film is released. Besides, how often do you get to edit an article about a film made by our generation's "Rebel" :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jim when you have time would you read my comments here?. I think for once I have actually managed to make sense. Major strides! Your opinion is most welcomed. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts (and spirit of cooporation), as I mentioned on Dave's talk page I've been doing a lot of yapping so I'm going to listen a while as everyone chime in before I add any more to the conversation. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Jim when you have time would you read my comments here?. I think for once I have actually managed to make sense. Major strides! Your opinion is most welcomed. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anytime is always good for your input. Color me crazy but it would be cool for this thing to be shaped up before the film is released. Besides, how often do you get to edit an article about a film made by our generation's "Rebel" :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for Mediation - Race and Intelligence
Hello, you have been named as an interested party in a request for mediation on the Race and Intellegence Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Race_and_intelligence_2 Please stop by and indicate whether or not you wish to participate in this process. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim62sch, I came across this RfA, which you declined. Would you like to have it deleted? Declined RfAs are normally deleted to avoid the impression that the candidate had an unsucessful RfA, and if you did run for adminship at a later date, creating a new RfA page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jim62sch 2 would look like you've had a first RfA that was unsuccessful RfA when in reality you hadn't actually run. It's up to you, of course, but I'll delete it if you like. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to delete. Thanks and cheers. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. :) If you ever want it restored, feel free to let me or another admin know. Best wishes. Acalamari 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Clever nick you've got. :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) Acalamari 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Your participation requested
(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)
Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Warton reference
Hi
I was looking at the Thomas Warton article, and at the bottom there's a web address in the Notes section namely ^ http://caxton.stockton.edu/pom/stories/storyReader$8 , which doesn't seem to find anything. Looking at the history it seems that you put it there in February 2006, so I wondered if you could shed any light on this. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I know it worked in 2006, but it seems to have become a bad link. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Greek question
Is this edit correct? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, yes. The Theta actually represented an aspirated "t" not the th sound in either this (call an edh) or think (called a thorn). Two asprirated T's would've been a bit much for the Roman tongue (and, it's unlikely both T's were aspirated even in Greek by the 1st or 2nd century CE -- the t's weren't initially aspirated in Hebrew, but the Greek spelling comes from a contraction of Mattathias, and the first theta represents the middle vowel (the lack of which may have been mistaken for aspiration in Hebrew)). Yep, clear as mud.
- Anyway, see Matthew 9:9, look for Μαθθαιον (accusative of Μαθθαιος) •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll check into one. •Jim62sch•dissera! 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring
See this ANI thread about the edit warring at User:Videmus Omnia. Please stop edit warring and discuss there. I've sent this notice to everyone editing that page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- like, whatever. I'll kill a personal attack everytime I see one. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Jim62sch. henrik•talk 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Relativist?
I would never order grapefruit juice with breakfast - it's disgusting to me. I would not support a law that others may not order grapefruit juice with breakfast. There are many social interactions that I would personally avoid, which I don't think it's wrong for others to pursue. There are ways that I would not put arguments, which I still think it's okay for others to articulate. I wouldn't sleep with your wife; I think it's just fine if you do.
If I left Wikipedia, I probably would do so quietly, but that doesn't mean that nobody can leave a statement explaining why they left.
All of that does not make me a "relativist", whatever that's supposed to mean. It means I recognize that tastes differ. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I like grapefruit juice and don't care what others think (about grapefruit). Chacun a son gout. Nonetheless, we're talking apples and grapefruit here --- the analogy just doesn't wash. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The point of my using several examples of increasing seriousness is that there's a continuum from apples to grapefruits, in this case. The grayer examples are more useful than the grapefruit juice. You seem to be implying, although not saying, that you... do consider it unacceptable to leave a departing statement here that is critical of other Wikipedians. Am I right? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's unacceptable -- mostly because it's tacky. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, my wife was offended by your statement -- yes, she reads over my shoulder. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid escalating the dispute
Per this arbitration enforcement, and as discussed at this ANI thread, and at this arbitration enforcement thread, I am asking you to avoid making edits like this and this. You indicated that you will accept the compromise over Videmus Omnia's user page. Please let's not escalate or reopen this dispute any further. I have asked Videmus Omnia to direct grievances to the arbitration committee, and I am asking you to do the same if you have any further concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I must be missing something, but so is my wife: neither of us can see any violation here. Weird that VO can be an obnoxious prick, but I can't defend my honour. Weird, really weied. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- As you will recall, I am the arbitrator who wrote the decision in your case. You are specifically and definitively instructed not to make any further reference on-wiki to Videmus Omnia's real-life activities or any disparaging reference to this (former) user. Issues concerning this user's departure message can be resolved without resort to these tactics. Any concern you may have with this instruction should be referred directly to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)