User:Jim62sch/archive5

Welcome!

Hello, Jim62sch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Dunc|☺ 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge Little Room

The Little Room should've been kept. Seriously. Why in your right mind would you try to merge it, come on! Talk to the people at the Little Room -- i put a Wikipedia link on my sig in the Little Room, and I showed the sig to other Little Roomers in a thread where you "comment on the sig above you". One little roomer commented, saying "You're not responsible for this ****, are you?", which then led to a link -- the "merge little room" section of the Stripes talk page. I am very disappointed - that article should've been kept. --S-man 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How long ago was that nom? •Jim62sch• 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

test

rd test

Islamic science

Jo, I just stumbled across this article, Islamic_science and did some copyediting, but I don't know enough about it to really get it into shape. Right now, it needs some work. Interested? Jim62sch 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but it looks like a re-organization is what it really needs. joturner 00:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

U-Th-Pb Geochronology

Hi Jim. U-Th-Pb geochronology is a mature discipline and on geological timescales is considered the gold-standard of geochronology. The three main decay systems are U-235 to Pb-207, U-238 to Pb-206 and Th-232 to Pb-208 (although the Th decay series is not used as much). You are correct, the decay is complex and for each scheme involves between 11 and 14 intermediate, unstable daughter products. The half-lives of the intermediate products range from microseconds to thousands of years but the half lives of the parent nuclides (U-238, U-235, and Th-232) are on the order of billions of years. Therefore at timescales much larger than the half-lives of the intermediate daughter products the decay system is at "secular equilibrium", meaning that the activities of the intermediate daughter products are all equal to that of the parent (the isotope of U or Th) and the "decay math", if you will, collapses into the decay of U/Th to Pb.

As I said above, it is the best understood dating method (for example the "Age of the Earth" is best known through U-Pb [actually Pb-Pb, a variant] dating of meteorites, the whole earth, and zircons) and its absence in the Wikipedia is unfortunate. In the next couple of weeks, I am moving continents and hope to have some late night time to at least get a good stub going. Cheers. Rickert 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This link provides a schematic diagram of the decay series. It's a little hard to see, but I'm sure you'll get the general idea [1]. Rickert 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

'Toon time

Remember Image:FMonk.jpg? Well, Bud Neill who was a source of inspiration to generations of Scottish cartoonists featured in Did you know... on the main page today ;-p ...dave souza, talk 11:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to say I was adding a certain someone to equestrian sculptures, noticed Pa state's fine statues and thought you might like this handy link: Commons:Category:Lobey Dosser....dave souza, talk 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Lobey Dosser, the Monument, is quite near Glasgow University, and giving my son a lift back to the flat he's sharing gave me the opportunity to grab the requested photies between showers. There's obviously local interest and pride: an elderly man stopped his car and asked if I knew what the statue was about. Apparently he knew Bud Neill, and often stops to help and enlighten puzzled tourists...dave souza, talk 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I happily make that promise. I know exactly how you feel, I get a certain variation of that same generalization directed against my self. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Thank you very much for your message. I've certainly made my share of unpleasant remarks in this exchange, for which I apologize. Yes, I would like to work with you, PL, and others on this interesting and important article. Certainly you guys have done the heavy lifting. What's required at this point amounts to editorial cleanup (though in the medium it would be nice to see some areas expanded). Cheers, --Chris 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, a little favour

Hey. Dunno if you remember me, but I talked to you a few months ago and you expressed an interest in Wage labour. Could I ask that you improve that article? It's a bit crap atm, and the criticisms of my edits on it during my arbitration has really made me see that. I don't really haev a lot of time right now, and I don't know a lot on the subject anyways, so could you do something about it please? Thanks. :) -- infinity0 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Death of Arminius

Hello, it's me again. It says in the article Arminius that he died in 21 AD. Where have you found the info that he died in 19 AD? Ludde 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Hetar 08:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ALSO Posted on Hetar's page:

Hetar, if you think that was a personal attack, you have either very thin skin or no concept of personal attacks. It was a statement regarding your behaviour, as opposed to a statement on you personally. "You are an "x"" where x is "bad" is a personal attack, "You are behaving (being) like an "x"", is a comment on behaviour. You were hiding behind WP:V to harass and wikistalk Taran, thus your behaviour is relevant.

BTW, harassment and wikistalking, which is what you were engaged in, are far more severe "infractions" than a perceived personal attack.

And while we're on personal attacks, Guettarda or I can very easily take this, "Thank heavens someone finally had the brains to do so." as a personal attack as it seems to call into question our intelligence. Thus:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- •Jim62sch• 09:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Singular they

My god, man! Sure, it may be substandard English, technically. But the universal drive behind norms, including language, is necessity: in this case, the need to talk about a non-gender-specific singular. The way I see it, if any system is broken, only a villain will punish an innovator who uses what they've got to get the job done. Lucidish 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, we're on the same wavelength. Thanks for the article reference. No doubt it'll be useful to people, whoever xey are.

I take a pragmatics-based approach to language, not a classical stylistics one. The way I interpret who/that is by understanding "X who Y's" as involving dispositional or character traits, while "X that Y's" involves actions. It seems most felicitous to say, "Barney is the guy who likes Betty", and "Barney is the guy that ate a rock"; while it is less felicitous to say, "Barney is the guy that likes Betty", and "Barney is the guy who ate a rock". But in either case they don't seem ungrammatical. Perhaps there are special circumstances, though, where intuitions would be more obvious. Lucidish 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Latin "Quid pro quo"

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me out quickly with some Latin. I was looking over the Quid_pro_quo page and there were two opposing opinions about the correct meaning. I asked for help on the talk page (see: Talk:Quid_pro_quo#Correct_Latin) but I didn't know how long it would be before someone responds. Since you have marked yourself as knowing Latin, maybe you could help. Thank you! Crito2161 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA's gone

Hey there, haven't talked for a while. I just thought I'd let the other TCF members know that User:SOPHIA has retired. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Zombie (disambiguation)

Hello. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by saying that I made it "impossible to find specific items" - that's an overstatement and a bit unfair, in my view.

I think this is a good example of a disambiguation page. Everything I see there is specifically referred to as "giant", i.e. you do not see the band They Might Be Giants or Godzilla listed there.

The previous version of the zombie disambig. page, that you restored, features Tales of the Zombie and Plan 9 from Outer Space. It does not seem likely, or sensible, that anyone looking for those things would simply type in "zombie".

Happy editing. PJM 11:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

test

Second personal attack aka, an accurate criticism

I hate to do this, I really do. As a "classical liberal", I just wish everyone would get along. But the following can't simply be ignored:

What is up with you? You wade into an article, make substantive, unsourced changes, and then refuse to discuss them on talk? With each passing day you are becoming more disruptive, with some edits bordering on vandalism. If you can't work and play well with others, if your behaviour is so mercurial that it's unclear to the community which Ed we're dealing with, it might be time for you to reflect upon what your goal is here. You've made quite a few good edits in the past, but at present the same simply cannot be said. Whether you and I agree on certain subjects is not the issue here, that you are becoming increasingly disruptive is. •Jim62sch• 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The following phrases clearly violate the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks eand IMHO also WP:NPA:

• becoming more disruptive, becoming increasingly disruptive
• behaviour is so mercurial
• edits bordering on vandalism

If you have a problem with my edits, please offer to discuss the edits; it's rare for me to refuse an invitation to discuss an article. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, but Jim's criticism of your method is accurate and not a personal attack. FeloniousMonk 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, constructive criticism is a no-no, perhaps Ed would have preferred that I refer to him in a third person impersonal manner: "the editor displays..." I doubt it would have made any difference.

And Ed, when you were invited to make your case in talk (twice) on the article in question you did not do so -- I suppose that was one of those "rare" moments. •Jim62sch• 15:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, if it's not an "attack" for one contributor to label another's as "disruptive" than you and FM won't mind if I point your disruptive and mercurial behavior? ;-)

By the way, if I was invited to make my case in talk, I missed it. So here is my offer to discuss my edits at talk:Classical liberalism. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you point out, quite frankly, although I'm guessing that there's a bit of a gulf between your definition of disruptive and mine (and probably FM's as well).

Here was the invite: (cur) (last) 11:01, 25 July 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) (rv Justify your major changes in talk, before undoing many other contributor's work) (emphasis added) In any case, I'll read your post in talk. •Jim62sch• 15:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA: Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee, that's what you call an "invitation to discuss"? Sounds more like an excuse for reversion. Anyway, I made almost the exact same "invitation" just before that about FM's changes, and FM refused to discuss them on talk. So your criticism is a bit one-sided.

It still sounds like your using gamesmanship to (1) avoid discussion, (2) accuse me of breaking rules, and (3) slip in some digs (like "mercurial").

I'd rather discuss the articles, something you and FM frequently refuse to do; rather, you just delete and revert. --Uncle Ed 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So your invitation was just an excuse to revert then?

Tut-tut -- you accused me of gamesmanship...Personal Attack, Personal Attack, batten down the hatches, Personal Attack! ROFL.

By all means, feel free to discuss the articles -- but let's remember that it's incumbent upon you to do some research on your own so that you're up to speed on the topic at hand, rather than asking questions that indicate that you've no idea of the subject. (Of course, this is likely a ploy... To wit: from Global warming:talk, "Come to think of it, I'd love to see a layman-accessible explanation of HOW carbon dioxide "traps heat" or whatever it does to contribute to global warming". Come on, that's eighth grade science. •Jim62sch• 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Damadian

Hi Jim. Thanks for stepping in with the Damadian article; I agree that recent changes leave it difficult to understand. If you're willing, could you take a look at this earlier version and let us know whether you think it's better than the current version? I'd like an unbiased opinion.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Raymond_V._Damadian&oldid=63154769

Monty Python TfD compromise

There is a compromise now posted on the TfD if you are still interested in this debate. One question, even though you are against this TfD, have you even taken the master template out for a test drive?
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

At a loss

Ok, I'm beginning to be at a loss over all of this (Wizard). While I would like to AGF, things are really getting stretched to the limit, imo. I feel as if I am being, at the very least, misrepresented, and arbitrary reverts without discussion are all too common. The few responses I am receiving are seemingly merely stylistic complaints, typically with an apparent lack of understanding of the topic(s).

So, I'm looking for suggestions.

For example, a.) What would you do in my place? b.) What would you suggest that I do?

The two are not always the same : )

(And I have this page on my watch list)

- Jc37 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, wait -- wizard (fantasy) seems like it hasn't had much activity over the past few days...am I looking at the wrong article? Maybe I'm missing something. •Jim62sch• 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

it's an "over time" thing. I presume it wouldn't be fair (time-wise) to ask you to go back and re read the whole discussion or look over the history of the article, but look at my last response on that page, including the links. What prompted me to finally ask you, though, was having a similar issue on the wizard disambiguation page. (In all of this, take note of time frames, and when and what things were responded to.) Hope this helps : ) - Jc37 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag Removal

Hi. I removed the tag, because the neutrality of the article is not disputed. It's a contentious topic, and the people who have been working on the talk page are trying to find ways to get along. Pouring fuel on the fire does not help. Carfiend 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tags

Not very cogently. Why don't you try to articulate your point a little more clearly on the talk page? That would be a lot more constructive than hostile tagging. Carfiend 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Apollo Moon Hoax article

I agree with your assessment of the article as a violation of NPOV. There has been a flurry of edits surrounding the addition and removal of the tag which would seem to argue for its validity. I'm looking for ways to improve the article and see the need to maintain the tag until it is sufficiently NPOV. However, activists have taken sides and staked positions that would seem to make this difficult. It is likely that the hoax proponents in particular will continually revert the NPOV tag. Your continued attention to this issue may be helpful in countering bias activity on the page that is bound to move the content of the article further away from the encyclopedic and NPOV. Your attention and guidance on this matter would be appreciated. Numskll 15:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've initiated an RFC on Carfiend, based on the culmination of his personal attacks et al. I'm not very sure what to do next. Any advice would be appreciated. Numskll 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Genesis Flood

On [[Young Earth Creationism}} you have put back the claim that "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris and John Whitcombe was an update of a book by Price. Do you have a reference to support this? Thanks. ^rossnixon 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good morrow, sir

Thanks for your literary criticism. And I hope that your evening and morning are pleasant ones, sir. --Rednblu 02:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you, thank you. Very nice. Neat. A puzzle for me that I cannot quite take fully apart and get back together again yet. More later as I proceed with your excellent posing of the puzzle. :) --Rednblu 14:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Eternal inflation

Please don't delete my comment about the similarities between steady state theory and eternal inflation without taking it to the talk page first. Your edit summary comment suggested an ignorance of the relationship between Guth's cosmic inflation and Linde's eternal inflation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to intl site

Why did you removed this website from the Nostradamus article? It is specilaly made for international collaboration and you are invited too. You said that the spanish translation are bogus, but translation can not be bogus - it can be GOOD or BAD(by the way if you know a beeter spanish translation pass it to me). But the idea of the website just to do THE BEST translation - so all the translation texts are FREE for editing based on the source materials given(facsimiles, originals etc). Thats why it is Wiki based and it makes this website Unique among the internet, so you cannot remove such link. Sasha l 09:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sasha, see WP:RS -- a site with significant mistranslations that uses a corrupt 1840 edition as its basis does not meet the criteria for being a reliable source (this is why I can and did remove such a site). I found errors in all of the languages, including Russian (which (the finding of errors) is pretty bad as I'm hardly competant in Russian and if I can notice errors, they must be egregious). Additionally, I don't really have the time to do the translations for Spanish, Portuguese, German and Italian (languages in which I am quite competant) myself so you might want to do some searching on the net for better translations. One other point: stay away from Babelfish for translations, it is quite horrid. •Jim62sch• 10:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is NOT using the bareste edition as it's basis. The base is faxcimiles and original texts of 1555-1697 - the rest is just the stuff which need tio be improved. So, about the translations, Russian for example is best known(1991, Kyev, Lybyd'). Spanish has been taken from the internet and as far as i know there are no better translation among the whole Inet(you can compare http://www.oceanru.com/wiki/Las_Profec%C3%ADas_de_Nostradamus with http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Centurias for example). The same situation with the other language translates - maybe be they are not the best, but the is no better ones in the internet currently, but will be with the help of this site. And i never uses babelfish. Sasha l 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The site does not meet WP:RS criteria, notwithstanding. •Jim62sch• 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Russian translation you have may be the best known (although I have no verification of that), but it still has problems. •Jim62sch• 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

so what? every translation has problems, but it doesnt mean that shouldnt be used if there is no better one. So what about the other translations? For example the english - do you know the better one? Sasha l 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, I'll be brief. If I'm gonna send an e-mail, I'll have to confirm my address here on Wikipedia and then, I must know what address the code will be sent from. I have a hotmail address and I have my spam filter set on the highest level. Therefore, I can only recieve e-mails from addresses I have in my address book or such that are marked as "safe addresses". Could you just please write me (on my user talk page) and tell me what address the confirmation code will come from, so I can add it to my list on hotmail. Secondly, I'm gonna need your address too, before I can recieve any mails from you. That's at bit trickier, if you don't wanna show it here or on my user talk page, but I'm sure we can work it out. SY Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy)

The discussions begin again : )

In any case, you're welcome to comment, and bring insight once again, if you would like. - Jc37 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikicivility

Dear Jim,

Do you always communicate with other editors the way you have with me? In my two encounters with you over the last two days, I've found your tone to be rather demeaning and dismissive, and you came across as arrogant and argumentative -- and as though you are the guardian of the Truth article.

I mention this not so much as a criticism (although I acknowledge that it is a criticism), but because as an experienced user, I'm unaccustomed to feeling immediately as though I'm being attacked and belittled by someone who is not a POV warrior or a troll -- neither of which I believe you are. I want to suggest sincerely that you might tone it down a notch or two, and not work so hard to puncture the other person's arguments or imply that the other person is uninformed, unsophisticated, or unaware of policies and procedures.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this is certainly civil. "move La Vérité to Truth#Classical philosophers section as per talk. Note: This is not removing the picture, as that would be in violation of User:Jim62sch's edicts". Primary point is that I despise censorship, and everytyime I see someone try to remove that picture I am reminded of Ashcroft having several statues covered because the showed, gasp, a breast. I assume you were also refering to my edit on the AfD for Truth Theory, yet there was certainly nothing uncivil in that edit -- Google is over-relied on. Additionally, I was hardly just responding to you, but rather making a point re Google and it's use to defend articles on Wiki. Sorry if you took it as incivility, but that was not the point. •Jim62sch• 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Corficolombiana

I just wanted to know how is that you know about Corfivalle and Corficolombiana Thanks

Pascaweb

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A very strange edit by you

Hi! I found that on April 14 2006, you made a very strange edit on the article 89 (see this old edit). You mixed two perfectly good sentences, about two different subjects, into one strange mix, which doesn't make any sense. Since I doscovered it today, I have reverted it, but I would just like to know what on earth was your purpose with this, since you don't seem to be the vandalizing type to me. I'm not angry or judgmental, I'm just curious. /Ludde 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding. I saw your notice on my User talk on the English Wiki and I'm totally satisfied with that answer. I'm also gladly surprised that you found my Swedish User page. It was no big thing about the 89 edit, just wondering what that strange edit was for. Speaking of edits and year articles, from what I've read on your User page, it seems we're doing similiar work, i.e. fixing the year articles with templates and more information. I've been doing so on the Swedish Wiki for quite som time now and the reason I've created a User account here on the English Wiki is to be able to survey all the year articles here too, since I've now begun the big task/project of translating the info on the English year articles into Swedish and adding it to the Swedish pages. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if I asked you other things in the future. I hope you won't mind that and wish you good luck with the year articles!

PS. You don't have to respond to this, but if you want to, feel free to do so on my English User talk page. Ludde 14:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I can translate Swedish texts for you, no problem. Feel free to ask any time and I'll be glad to help. Then I just thought I'd mention when I won't be available. This Thursday (June 15) I'm going away for a funeral (my paternal grandmother died a few days ago) and will return in the afternoon on Saturday the 17th. On Saturday, July 1, I'm going on vacation and will return on July 19. During this time, I won't have access to the Internet (or indeed a computer at all), so I won't be able to send any replies then.

About languages: First, thanks for the remark about my English. It proves that two years' worth of university studies of the language was useful. Secondly, I am indeed lucky to know a bit of French, having studied it in high school and a few years before that. However, it was a few years ago, so I've forgotten parts of it, but the knowledge I still have, together with some sort of Babel translation device and a French dictionary, will come in handy. The reason I mention this is that you've already anticipated my next move, which is to find info from the French wiki year articles. However, I thought I'd wait until I'm done with the English wiki, and I've only just started on that one (I began with year 1 and have made it up to 100 so far).

I'm sure you and I will be able to exchange info and help each other in the future, as it seems we have a mutual interest in the year articles. However, you must tell me, if you sometime find me tedious and you want me to get off your back. Ludde 21:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some questions

Hi there! Sorry I haven't answered you since the day before yesterday, but I've been tied up in other things and have not hade the time. However, no I do, so here's a few questions. First, an answer, though. I'm sorry to say I don't know any online course in Swedish, but feel fre to ask me anyting. Since it is my mother tongue and I (if I may say so myself) am very good at it, I'm sure I'll be able to answer quite a few questions about it. I don't know many languages (Swedish, obviously; as you've noticed, English, and a bit French. Secondly, I can understand Norwegian, Danish and some German, but I've never studied those languages), but I consider it an honour to be able to speak and use my native language well and many times I sigh and sometimes get upset with the abuse of the Swedish language, that it seems most Swedes do today. This is good most of the time, since I can then spot spelling and grammar errors, but can become a drag, if I overdo it and keep correcting minor errors to the extreme. Please stop me if I do.
Now for the questions:

1. How do I make my signature better looking. When I sign a talk page with four tildes, I would like my signature to have one link to my user page and one to my talk page, but I still haven't figured out how to do that. I noticed you have different colours on the letters in your signature, so how do I do such tings?
2. When you make changes on a page, what do all your abbreviations mean? I have figured out that fmt must mean format or formatting or something like that, but I haven't understood the other ones yet.
3. What time is it over there, in relation to the UTC? Over here it's normally one hour more than UTC but two during daylight saving time (which occurs from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October in Europe). I thought it could be of interest to know how many hours that separate us, so that I'll know if I'm surfing, but it's early morning over att your place and I therefore shan't expect an answer from you instantly. Right now it's a quarter past twelve PM UTC, but a quarter past two PM over here.
   

Seems those were all the questions I had for the moment. Ah, well, then I won't bother you any more for the moment. Good luck with your wikipedying and feel free to write me any time. (Just remember I'm going away for my grandma's funeral tomorrow and return on Saturday.) Ludde 12:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! Sorry I haven't written till now, but there have been so many things to do.

The most popular food in Sweden? That's a hard one. I don't know, but I would either vote for pizza or pasta (my girlfriend says pasta). On the other hand, you can hardly find a Swede who doesn't eat potatoes every week. I tried to find information on the subject, but I couldn't.

Anyway, now I've returned from my grandmother's funeral and have two weeks before I go away again. Concerning Wikipedia, I'm devoting this time to the work of translating the English year articles into Swedish and correct errors on them in both languages. So far, I've done till the year 165 AD. Thanks again for telling me how to fix my signature. As you can see, it contains a bit more information now. See you /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 10:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting about the food and the pizzas. However, I don't think all Norwegian food is as bad as "luttefisk" (which is called "lutfisk" in Swedish by the way). I have no experience of Norwegian food, never having been to Norway, but from what I've heard it's no huge difference between it and Swedish food. Just now, I was reminded by my girlfriend about two things that are essential in Swedish food culture. First of all, the meatballs. I think it's impossible to find any Swede (at least a native one) who has never in his or her life eaten meatballs. Secondly, we have the herring. I don't like it personally, but it's very important in Sweden at Christmas and Midsummer celebrations. (If you've seen the remake of The Producers, you know what I mean.)

It seems pretty much, to have three different projects running at once, concerning the year articles. On the Swedish Wikipedia, I've added events from Swedish history on them, but that's only from the 8th century and onwards. In my work of translating the English year articles into Swedish, I've now reached the year 200 and I keep going regularly. So, if I would reach the last year you've done so far, I hope you wouldn't mind, if I added yb's and fixing the headlines on those following it.

Another question about the year articles. I don't know if you've seen the yb's on them on the SweWiki, but they also have links to years, decades and centuries back and forth (if I may brag, I'm the one who made them), but they're using parser functions instead of adding the figures on every article. What do you think about this? It is a lot easier and takes up less space. Should it be used on the EnWiki or not?

Take care and good luck with the year articles. Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had to mention...

Hello! I just had to mention this. Yesterday, I disocvered a little sign of wikiholism on myself. My girlfriend discovered some strange orange spots on our living room ceiling and neither of us knew where they came from. For a split second, my mind started to think "where can I find a history of this ceiling, to find out who vandalised it". It only took me a few moments to realise that it wasn't wikipedia or even a computer related matter at all, but it's bad enough that I've been thinking along those lines.
Secondly, I have a little question for you: What skin do you prefer/use on Wikipedia? I use Monobook, mostly because it's the standard and I've got used to it, but also because the others seem more complicated. SY (meaning See You) Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! Let's see if I can answer all your questions properly. I'll do it in the order you asked them.

1. About the year boxes: Of course you should continue using the form you're using. The thing it uses for calculating the years are called Parser Functions. As far as I know, it works on every wiki. It's a simple way of calculating, which (with a really simplified description) lets you write 10-1 in the template and that is shown as 9 on the article page. Therefore, you can write PAGENAME-3 and if the pagename is 470, it will turn out as 467. I only discovered them about a month ago, ironically on the Norwegian wiki, and they made it so much easier with the year boxes in the Swedish wiki, as it was a function I hade been wanting for ages. Have a look at the Parser Functions page and please write me, if you want to ask me more about it.
2. The word Båttypen means The type of boat. The n at the end is the definite article, since it's an en-word (i.e. the word is en båttyp if its indefinite), not an ett-word (i.e. it's not called ett båttyp).
3. Jelly? In meatballs? Never heard of it. According to my recipe, meatballs contain minced meat, water, one meat extract cube, dried minced bread, an onion, salt, pepper and an egg. Of course, the ones you by in stores contain some sort of sweetener, but only those that are numbered E216 and such (at least it says so on the Swedish labels, I don't know if you have such sweeteners in the US). It would taste rather odd with at sweetener like jelly.

I also have a question for you. What does the abbreviation dab mean? I understand it has something to do with the for other uses comment, but what does it actually stand for? SY Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 19:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see what I can do. I'll answer the questions about "Lejon är utrotade i Europa senast vid denna tid" first, since it's easy. "Lejon" means "lions" here, even though just one lion is also called "lejon" (it's one of those words that have zero plural in Swedish). Then we have "är" (are), "utrotade" (extinct; one lion is "utrotat", several lions are "utrotade" and not utrotate, since the base word is utrotad), "i" (in), "Europa" (Europe), "senast" (latest; or "no later than"), "vid" (at), "denna" (this) and "tid" (time). So a literal word-for-word translation of this sentence into English would be "Lions are extinct in Europe latest (or "no later than") at this time".

Jelly in meatballs? It still sounds odd. BTW, you wrote "I have a fiend who puts grape jelly in her meatballs -- it's actually not bas". What does bas mean?

Well, summer nights are very bright in Sweden, and winter nights are very dark. The northernmost part of Sweden is above the arctic cirle you know, which means the sun never sets in the summer up there, nor does it rise in winter. What time is the sunrise/sunset in Philadelphia in summer and winter? Besides, it's nice to have so many hours of sunlight, since you feel more awake and not so tired when it's brighter. It's worse in winter, when we only have daylight from about eight or nine in the morning to about three in the afternoon.

Now, the parser functions. They're not very easy, but I can give it a try. First of all, you use the {{ and }} signs, just like when you use templates. (We call them "måsvingar" (gullwings) in Swedish, what are they called in English?) Secondly, you use the # sign. (Which some people, including myself, call "brädgård" (timberyard) in Swedish, what do you call it?) You can then use them to put calculations and/or comparisons on the pages. This, you do with different functions, such as expr, ifexpr etc. A very easy one that's used in the Årtal 1-799 template is the following:

[[{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}+3}}]]

The {{ is what shows where the function begins and the # starts the function. I then use a simple expression (expr) and a colon to separate the expr word from the actual calculation. The calculation itself is, as you can see {{PAGENAME}}+3. If I use this on, let's say, the year article 500, it will interpret this as 500 + 3 and it will show on the page as 503. Then I use the }} signs to stop the function. Lastly, I have put common links ([[ and ]]) around it, so that it will link to the 503 page. It's as simple as that.

However, when I want it to count backwards, it's a bit trickier. If I use this on the year article 2, it will interpret it as 2 - 3 which is -1 and it will link it to that, not to 1 BC. I then have to use an ifexpr like this:

[[{{#ifexpr:({{PAGENAME}}-3)<=0|{{#expr:(({{PAGENAME}}-3)*(-1))+1}} f.Kr.|{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}-3}}}}]]

First there are the {{ and # signs, to start the function. Then I use the ifexpr to compare values according to the form Compare values|What to do, if it's true|What to do if it's not true. Then, the values to be compared are {{PAGENAME}}-3. I then use the <= to see if it's less than or equal to zero. Then comes a separator (the | sign) and then I tell the function what to do, if this is true (if the PAGENAME is less than or equal to zero). I then use an expr function within the ifexpr function, since I want it to calculate PAGENAME minus 3 and take the answer times -1 and then add 1. If this is used on the year article 2 it will interpret this as 2 - 3, which is -1. Then it takes this answer times -1 (the asterisk means multiplication) and, as you know, -1 * -1 = 1. Then, it has to add 1 to this answer, since three years before year 2 isn't 1 BC but 2 BC. Lastly, it writes f.Kr. (Swedish for BC; it actually means före Kristus which is Swedish for Before Christ). Then comes another separator ( | ) and after that, I tell it what to do, if the answer is false (if the PAGENAME isn't less than or equal to zero, i.e. more than zero). Then, I simply want it to calculate PAGENAME - 3, so I use another expr function for that. The reason there are four } signs at then end is because I first have to stop the last expr function and then stop the whole ifexpr function.

I think it's best that you write me and tell me if you understand all of this (I'm not sure my explanations are clear enough), before I explain the decade and century calculations. But, as you can see, when it works, it's not difficult to understand. It took me a while, but I'm very glad I found it. Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 19:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In Swedish, all nouns are either "en" or "ett" and the thing is, you have to learn which it is for every one, we don't have such a simple system as you with "a" or "an" depending on vowel or consonant sounds. We have it just like the French, who have "un" or "une" for each noun. The rule is that all "ett" words that don't end with a vowel have zero plural (of course, there are exceptions to this, but it's the general rule). A few examples of Swedish words that are "ett" words and have zero plurals are "hus" (house), "tak" (roof or ceiling; we have the same word for both; speaking of ceilings: those strange spots I mentioned may have been made by the last tennant in our apartment - we moved in about a month ago), "lån" (loan) and "år" (year). Speaking of which, I noticed one odd bit of trivia. In English, you say "one mouse" and "several mice", "one louse" and "several lice", but not "one house" and "several hice". The pattern is similar in Swedish, since we say "en mus" and "flera möss", "en lus" and "flera löss", but not "ett hus" and "flera höss" and it may be because "mus" and "lus" are "en" words, but "hus" is an "ett" word.

I'm not sure whether or not to count "utrotade" as a compund word. Sure, it's made up by "ut" (out) and "rotade" (rooted) (which would literally mean that the animal had been removed froom its roots), but it feels odd to think of it as a compound, since we don't have the opposite ("inrotade") and just "rotade" is something completely different.

Oh, so it meant bad? Then I get it. I still say it sounds odd though.

I don't really understand what you mean by "where on Wiki is it stored". Do you mean "where's the php file" or what? As far as I know, I simply write the script in the template and it works.

I don't know very much about fighter planes, but Draken (not Drakken) is rather old, so Viggen is more modern. However, the most modern one is Gripen (better known as JAS (its full name being JAS 39 Gripen), which stands for Jakt, Attack, Spaning (Pursuit, Attack, Reconnaissance).

How big is your interest in history? For me, it is the big spare time interest (I even went you university to try becoming a history teacher, but I failed and have no desire to become one any more) and I have many books on the subject. I know Swedish history best (that's what most of my history books are about) and then my knowledge gets smaller and smaller the further away from Sweden I get (i.e. a know a little less about other European countries' history and even less about African, Asian or American history). I'm not the one to hold long boring lessons about history to everyone I meet, but I'm glad to share my knowledge with those who ask and want to know. Yes, you could call me a history nerd, but I try not to bore everyone stiff with it. However, that's why the Wikipedia year articles are perfect for me, since I can there write about my favourite subject and have it "published" right away.

SY Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 23:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Belluno#Fractions

Please don't change the headers "Fractions" in Italian communes. They are linked from the infobox list frazioni, and, further, "Townships" is a wrong definition. A frazione is usually a small town/hamlet which is administratively part of the comune but is differentiated from the city capital of that commune/municipality. Not all Italian communes have frazioni: c. 80% of the comuni, in fact, is made of only of the city/town bearing the name of the comune. Ciao!--Attilios 10:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to add an explaination of the meaning of frazioni in all articles having such a list (this would make the articles to be awkward... see WP:MOS). If one wants to know what it is, there's the apposite wikilink in the infobox. Ciao and good workd. --Attilios 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

Hello! If you think you're late in replying, how about this, two and a half weeks after your reply. But, I'm excused since I've been on holiday the whole time, without access to the Internet or even av computer at all. Me and my girlfriend visited her parents' summer house on Gotland, where we've listened to the leading Swedish politicians' speeches during the classic "Almedal week". They used many words, but didn't say very much; however, it was good to hear their statements, since there's a general election coming up in Sweden (September 17) and it's very indecisive whether the left parties (The social democrats and The left party, cooperating with The environmental party) will keep the government position they've held for the past 12 years or if the right parties (The moderate party, The people's party, The christian democrats and The central party) will take over. Personally, I'm voting for the left parties.
So, you've started to study Swedish? Being a native speaker, I can tell you it's one hell of a language to learn. But, since you already know many languages, you have a head start. Let me just give you a little anecdote, to show the difficulty of it.

There was a native speaker of Swedish, who was going to buy a hot dog. The hot dog vendor, however, was not a native speaker. When the vendor asked, if the customer wanted ketchup on his hot dog, he replied "Ja, men mycket lite" (in English "Yes, but very little", but literally "Yes, but much little"). The vendor didn't know if the customer meant much or little, so he put on very much ketchup. Then, the customer said "Det där blev nog lite mycket" (in English "I guess that was a bit much", but literally "That was probably a little much").

So, I don't expect you to be perfect at it from the start. Many of my fellow Swedes, who are so called native speakers of the language, are far from perfect. I guess the only person who really can speak it is me... Well, joking aside, I do put pride in being able to speak and use my native language in a correct way.
Speaking of which, this brings me to my interests. As I mentioned, history is my big interest in life. However, as you may have already noticed, I also have a big interest in languages. Their connections and the etymology of words is quite fascinating and I am lucky to share this interest with my girlfriend. (BTW, what do you call it, when you live together with you girlfriend/boyfriend, without being married, as we do? Should I say spouse or what? In Swedish, we say Sambo, which is short for Sammanboende, meaning living together.) Thirdly, I'm not doing very much trainspotting, but trains are another passion of mine. Connected to my interest in languages is also my passion for writing. For many years, I've written fairy tales for my brothers and others and I have a secret dream of some day becoming an author. Lastly, I also enjoy movies from all different eras (the oldest one I've seen is The Great Train Robbery from 1903), my absolute favourites being the Back to the Future trilogy.
About your screwed up sentence: The last part ("de övriga låtarna på albumet brukar även de räknas som gruppens finare material") means "the other songs on the album are usually also counted as the group's finest material". Tell me if you want a deeper word-for-word translation and analysis if the sentence; I'd be only too happy to oblige.
Today, I have just finished reading a 600-page book about Sweden during the 13th century, called "Jarlens sekel" ("The Century of the Earl"), by Swedish author Dick Harrison. It's been really fascinating and it's the first book I've read for ages, since I've been so busy with other things for a long time. It felt really good being able to read it, and it's only taken me a month (that's how much time I spend on reading books, apparently) to come through it. Now, I'm going to se how I can use it as a source for the year articles on Wikipedia. Well, not exactly right now, because it's two o'clock in the morning, and I'm off to bed, but tomorrow, maybe. SY Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nostradamus FA tag/box

There's already a FA tag on the Nostradamus discussion page. I thought only the star was supposed to be visible on the article. I haven't seen any other featured articles that have the FA box on the main article page. - Zone46 15:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Sandbox

Hey man, I edited your user subpage (something that isn't normally accepted) and removed the wikify tag you placed there. The only reason ive done this is because if you do so, your page shows up here. I hope I didn't interfere with your experimenting. Sorry man. -- Reaper X 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

From the subject of this discussion. "Arrogant"-- occasionally. But mostly about the people I have had the honor to work with. As for a "Fool" and "Mindless". Perhaps, like the scarecrow in "The Wizard of OZ", I substitute the odd diploma or two for brains.<grin> I hereafter vow not to post anything on controversial pages. Too many true beleivers, even if I agree with their "true belief".

A technical point. Donno your background. But, for your future information in judging bios of scientists-- Using citations on the net as a count is subject to gross artefacts.

E.g., unless both papers are actually posted as a journal article on the net (Science only does this back too about 1996), most cross-cites do not get picked up. So the place to look is the reasonable proxy "related articles" on http://pubmed.gov or on citation index. E.g. Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device. But, only a handful show up on a net search.

An illustrative counter example is the journal Stroke, where, unlike Science, they have recently posted full text articles back to the 1970's. With such articles, the number of citations showing on-line reasonably corresponds to "related articles" on Pubmed.gov.

E.g., for this this 1970's paper in Stroke, Google Scholar lists 100 citing articles. while Pubmed lists 89 associated articles. Not too far off, considering all the variables.Pproctor 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comical irony

That's odd Have you read WP:VAND? I quote:

Blanking

Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit.

Changing people's comments

Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)

Do you think you are violating the spirit of these rules (if not their letter?) And, yes, Ed did give me a similar note on my talk page, which you can see for yourself. If you've got some problem with me being an arrogant fool, you can e-mail me, rather than writing it on the Internet for others to see. If you want to have a mature conversation with another adult, feel free to contact me; I'm still sincerely waiting a response to the questions I asked you. Note that I will be out of town soon for a few days. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gratitude I accept your apology and your spirit of good will and candor. The offer is on the table to discuss further if you are so inclined. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello Jim62sch,

Thank you Jimbo for updating the info about Grapefruit Seed Extract. Here is some sentences for easy reading about GSE. Scientific studies, including as noted in the "Identification of Benzethonium in Commericial Grapefruit Seed Extracts" study done by chemist Gary R. Takeoka, suggests synthetic preservatives as the universal antimicrobial attributable to the broad-spectrum antimicrobial effect. Another study done in Germany (Aspects of the antimicrobial efficacy of grapefruit seed extract and its relation to preservative substances contained. Pharmazie, 1999; 54(6): p. 452 to 456.) found commerical grapefruit seed extacts contaminated with synthetic preservatives. When these residual preservatives were not present as in laboratory made extracts, as documented in yet another later study as sited in Identification of Benzalkonium Chloride in Commercial Grapefruit Seed Extracts, the evidence suggests 100% natural GSE to possess no antimicrobial properties.

"May you find your circle of life true and free as a song bird."

Assume good faith

Hello Jim62sch. Please assume good faith. You have shown no evidence to support your accusations. My edits are of a high standard, and I am working to ensure that NPOV policy is followed on the vitalism article. Presently a lot of new edits by Gleng and supported by yourself have failed to be presented in line with NPOV policies. I realise its an ongoing effort, but the direction is still towards fringe promotion. You have also accused me of trolling. They way you have done so works entirely against Wikipedia policy on civility. You have an obligation to assume good faith and to discuss in a civil way. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 05:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your 'conditions' on posting

You said : " ...now enough with the games -- finding any remaing "cites needed" is on the person placing the tag" How did you come up with that? Are you saying that I can put anything I choose in an article and the burden of researching it falls on the person questioning its veracity? I don't think that's how it works; if I add something to an article I'd better be able to defend it. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

See the talk page. I'm archiving this as I've already responded. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My compliments

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

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

---

Quoi faire

Est-ce que tu as vu ce que l'un de notres collègues vient de faire, voire [2]? Je ne vois pas de tout, le lien qu'il puisse exister entre la citation qui il vient ajouter et la "soi-disante" conclusion. C'est merdique!--CSTAR 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

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

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

JA

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

My RFA

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

RfA thanks

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

Why the reversion of the Damadian page?

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

Robert Morey

To the first one you wrote. You must have known that adding what was really less than one line was likly to get deleted. As to the second time, you are right I should have checked a bit more to see if it was a repost of the same material or a different article. I apologise for that and will restore the article. I have also added back the category and fixed the references. Once again my apologies for being a bit trigger happy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

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

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

Baldassare Squitti

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

Stiffle

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

SOPHIA again

re: your message of July 11, 2006

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

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

PS: SOPHIA returned on August 23. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

John McGinness Bio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left on Proctor's talk page

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

Next, the Damadian article has nothing to do with the issue of McGinness, but rather the fact that the man has few hits on the internet and that I sense self-aggrandisement do. Is the internet the be all and end all? No. But, if his papers were ref'd by so many people, there should be more than a few hits. In any case, I am not changing my vote. Word of advice, long rambling screeds indicative of a persecution complex and which are presented in an adversarial tone are unlikey to achieve your ends. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Mccready's email

See my response to Mccready's unblock request by email. [3] Hope this helps since nothing else has so far. Take care, FloNight 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

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

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

User:Arbustoo removes material

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your input

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

NOR

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

Jon Awbrey

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

Janelle Monae

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

Honorifics

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

Father is functionally the same as Doctor or Professor, so it does not belong. We already get the point by the SJ after his name, "is a Jesuit priest" in the intro, and the "Priesthood and theological study" section. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Conflict reduction

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

NOTE: See KV's page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. [4] He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Gentle Rotweiler

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

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

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

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

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

Damn, I hadn't thought of that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Hmmm...something about quotes, but then clinch doesn't make sense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Ugh, I hate wrestling. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [5]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [6] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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