User:Jim62sch/archive4

Please consider using the new ref-tag when adding references. This recently created extension to the software makes adding references much simpler, in my opinion. See also Meta:Talk:Cite/Cite.php.

Simply adding a reference^[1]. Period^[2]. Named references are an option^[3]

The^[3] references appear^[4] when and there the <references/> tag is added^[3]:

No pressure, though. -- Ec5618 01:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I'm also responding to you here, mainly because the clutter of the article's talk is evidently making you miss where I repeatedly addressed the issue. The section in question begins on the backbone of weasel words (some critics, some supporters, etc.) and the only links that are present do nothing to source these weasely phrases. I've responded to you in talk about the personal attacks (against me, rather than the points). I've also made a RFC, but I would ask you, as you are involved in the edits (and as I asked the other two editors), to review the points I made (repeating them for the third or fourth time in Talk to clarify), and show how that section is not comprised of weasel words and not comprised of original research built on the back of those weasel words. NB, edits would not be necessary if honest discussion, rather than blanket reverts, were attempted. agapetos_angel 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear how "some" is a weasel wortd. Do you want an exact count, knowing that the count would change (more likely grow) in time? Some, many, most, etc., are not weasel words -- true they are not as definitive as saying "there are 25 critics...", but everyone knows what the words mean. True weasel words would be minority (49.999999% or less) and majority (50.00000001% or more).

Second, unless you responded on the discussion page as to what precisely you think are/were personal attacks (I've not been there yet), I don't see what you're on about. Jim62sch 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the Sarfati page Jim. Please note that some of my comments are a bit sarcastic. The fact that Sarfati gets any serious air time is beyond me. From reading the AiG articles he has written he appears to be a bigot plain and simple. The references to "known communits" was classic. Did you notice that Gastrich also framed the debate around Christians vs Atheists. I have no idea what goes on inside the fundamentalist evangelical churchs but these types of comments are genuinely worrying. It demonstrates they have no ability to reason at all. David D. (Talk) 14:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, to avoid an edit war, I am leaving you this message that your removal of the dispute tag on jonathan sarfati is considered vandalism--"Improper removing other people's dispute tags ... Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period".Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism I am leaving the tag in good faith, and you agreed yourself (see history) that it is disputed by admonishing that a consensus had not formed; therefore, please follow procedure and leave the tag that I am now replacing. Thank you agapetos_angel 12:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the apology :) agapetos_angel 13:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that while I came on a bit strong in response to your comment on talk human, I intended a rather whimsical tone, and certainly didn't mean any offense. Also, while we may not have any shared POV's (mine are listed here) we do like some of the same music (mozart, beethoven, dylan, the beatles...) Cheers, Sam Spade 14:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken...I can see why you're so frustrated, although I'm glad to see it was just sarcasm (otherwise I might've responded "Huh?")  :) . Also, I think your new (old) suggestion is perfect bewcause that really is where long discussions of war, spirituality, philosphy, economic go. (BTW, we do agree on economics for the most part). My scores on the political poll were -5.63 -6.72. Ah well, at least our tastes in music show similarities. User:Jim62sch (sig left by Sam Spade 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

I support a free market and trade, entreprenuership and all that good stuff. Efficiency is like a commandment from God in my eyes ;) That said, I just can't accept allowing kids to starve and people being neglected when we could help them thrive. Are you familiar w Eudaimonia? Eudaimonic Meritocracy is the simplest way to explain my ideal state. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If something is Greek (or Latin), I usually know it.  :) I don't know if a meritocracy, while a good ideal, is realizable in any setting: nepotism and political favoritism are too prevalent in many businesses and in the appointee levels of government.

I most certainly agre with you about the blind eye turned by many on the starving people of the world. We have the resources to feed them, and we should make sure it happens. However, in many cases the hold of religions that ban contraception needs to be loosened -- the earth has finite resources, and more will not fall to earth like manna from the gods. Jim62sch 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I favor non-racial (meritocratic) eugenics, as well as what I know so far about euthenics. Neither contradict my spiritual values, at least not how I interpret them. I do not agree with contraception alone can be an answer, indeed I think that has thus far proven to have a dysgenic effect, with more intelligent, responsible, wealthier persons making use of contraceptives, and the poor, irresponsible and ignorant breeding furiously, while making use of social welfare to achieve ever lower rates of mortality despite their excesses. God helps those who help themselves... Sam Spade 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it looks clunky and is unnecessary, i only threw it out as a compromise. If i had to vote i would go with your paragraph as supported by Dunc and felonious too. It is very close to a consensus. I am surprised there is such strong feeling to have biologist in the sentence since it is just a classification/description of the body. You don't need to be a biologist to do that. One can have a body without religion but can you have religion without a body? Sam Spade seems to think one can (I will never been on board that type of thinking). David D. (Talk) 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

re: human But, but but,................ ;-) David D. (Talk) 17:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I made this edit we have seen one edit from the previously active group whom identify more with spirt than body. Is this the raging calm before the storm? Or the mediatation that leads to paradise? David D. (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please retract the allegation that you made here ('... continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits') based on the fact that it is completely false as proven here. The subsections in the Jonathan Sarfati article remained in the same order since the unprotection before and after each of my edits (and throughout everyone elses), aside from a typo by FM that he restored, until the first true change where I moved subsection Moral Issues down (i.e., no change to the order of Chess above Scientist). You changed the order of Scientist and Chess, then falsely accused me. A comment on that retraction here would also be appreciated based on 'The victim bit doesn't fly'. Thank you agapetos_angel 03:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1st error explained on appropriate page. As for the second request -- not a chance. You are pretending to be an injured party, a victim of harrassment (where the harrassment lies, I do not know), an innocent editor with no conflict of interest issue hanging over her head. Jim62sch 11:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the retraction agapetos_angel 13:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, please read KC's warning at the bottom of the page here. I have asked her, and another admin, to step in, because according to KC, this is an offence which could get you banned. I'd strongly recommend backing off. agapetos_angel 03:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across that way, I've just edited again to try and make it clear I was talking to both sides. Identity issues are one of my hot-spots, but I agree that there are cases where other considerations come first. It just seems that with the edits I saw today, a cooling off would be wise. I'm not supporting AA's position - I simply don't know enough of the back-story to do that. But my edit was probably not worded well enough to show that I meant that she needs to back off and cool down too. Sorry for that -- sannse (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice you've referred to the outcome of discussion about chess credentials on Talk:Jonathan Sarfati. The discussion took place from 10th to 16th February, but strangely enough the last entry there is dated 17:48, 2 February 2006. Such missing talk with no history of deletions is not something I've come across before. As it happens, due to my bad habit of keeping web pages open in tabs I have the discussion to 20:47, 16 February 2006 to hand, so let me know if there's anything you want to check. ...dave souza, talk 14:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No bets, but when I click on the previous date at the top to see the previous page of 16 Feb it comes up "The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Talk:Jonathan Sarfati,oldid=39918659".", which is not something I'd know how to achieve. ....dave souza, talk 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Req._Emergency_injunction_on_posting_personal_info.

You're welcome. It was still on my watchlist, and the typos just jumped out at me, that's all. agapetos_angel 02:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Duh, that's what I thought. Well at least that means I'm not totally insane :-)

So I'm kind of lost as to what you're saying. (You appear to be supporting a finding of fact that makes that statement. Perhaps you responded to a diff and lost track of context?)

It might be wiser to drop that entire finding with all 3 points altogether in fact. It reminds me a bit of MAD ;-) But that's up to you then.

Kim Bruning 16:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

you have "likewly" where I think you meant "likely." JoshuaZ 18:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm doing a mini-project. Could I use your political survey result (assuming it's from politicalcompass.org)? -- infinity0 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! But uh... which one is the economic number and which one is the social number? -- infinity0 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you have what I think is a spelling error in your third assertion, "consistant" should be "consistent." JoshuaZ 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry one more- "Ausralian" should be "Australian" I think. JoshuaZ 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"What in Hades is that doing in Iowa?" I dunno, but John Hagelin lives near Fairfield. I actually met him during the 1992 campaign, he was handing out literature that asserted that quantum mechanics proves TM. Not exactly the Copenhagen interpretation, although he did base his arguments on the observer effect. I wasn't too pleased when he and Pat Buchanan tore apart my beloved Reform Party in 2000.

All of which goes to show that it's not just the YEC folk who mix religion and science. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey indeed. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you've been in a dispute with Sam Spade on the article God. We've had a similar problem with his reverting over at Socialism. Could you comment at Talk:Socialism#Sam_Spade.27s_consistent_reversions? Thanks. -- infinity0 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started the RfC over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct - sign your name next to the nomination, please. -- infinity0 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for the examples on the RfC, but let's not turn this into a diff-spam. I think you should remove some of the diffs and save them for later, if they are needed. A brief summary is best; this RfC is supposed to try to have a positive affect on Sam's behaviour, which I don't think will be achieved by huge diff-spamming, which looks quite intimidating. -- infinity0 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The following was left on Infinity0's user page:

I was done anyway. But, in all honesty, I've looked at Sam's edit history back to the time he joined, his behaviour has been the same throughout, nothing has changed it, and it's unlikely that anything will. I've been through this with two other editors (Jason Gastrich and Benapgar) and my experience has been that remediation is untenable, and rehabilitation unlikely (sounds odd coming from a liberal, eh?).

Also, an RFC is just that, a request for comment. In order for the process to be in any way effective, a preponderance of the evidence must prove the point one is trying to make. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the clearest example of an WP:AGF violation I have yet seen. Combined with your steady incivility at Talk:Human, including some rather severe personal attacks in your edit summaries there, I feel I have reason for formal complaint. I suggest you rethink your method of interacting with others here, and your acceptance of WP:POLICY. Sam Spade 16:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not policy - it is a guideline, and as such is flexible. People's views of each other change based on their experiences of each other, and I hope you can understand that is why AGF is not a rock-solid law. And, please don't criticise others when your own attitude leaves much to be desired. -- infinity0 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The irony (eyes rolling). David D. (Talk) 17:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the pot calling the shiney new kettle black to me. — Dunc|☺ 18:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO Sam calling me a vandal in an edit summary, for restoring consensus version, tops that. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, you guys are being mean to Sam on my page. Now I'll get dinged for supporting truth, justice and the Wiki-way.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Medal.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, you have tagged the image correctly. Cheers, Shyam ^(T/C) 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Couple of recent items struck me as being in line with your interests: Vital lessons at orang-utan 'Oxbridge' and The ideas interview: Lewis Wolpert. Just thought I'd alert you to the links in case you'd not seen them. ...dave souza, talk 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The James Van Praagh article is a bit thin. For such a seminal cultural figure, this is a shame. Why don't we take this in hand? (This thought inspired by the fact that Mr Van P.s noxious TV show is now coming to Australia. I'm sure it'll be very popular. I'm thinking of taking out a patent on snake-oil and joining in). PiCo 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing from an internet cafe in Ubud, Bali. I internet a little before dining. Trip's going well. I see a need for me to stay in Bali a few months. I see a need for cash. Please send some. Let you know. PiCo 11:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained to Guettarda, with nineteen external links there already, I thought that yet another one was link-farming (in fact, the others could do with being slimmed down a bit, as per Wikipedia:External links). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's OK — not a pain at all. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you copy/paste a disambig page? What was the point? If you don't know what EVP I'm referring to in my comments I'd be glad to clarify. Copy & pasting large chunks of irrelevant text doesnt really convey your meaning. Also, it is slightly disruptive to the flow of the conversation. ---J.Smith 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should use the correct link for the benefit of those who stumble accross the page and don't know what you're talking about. •Jim62sch• 23:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.smith"

I can appreciate that, (and I'll correct it), however I was asking why you copy and pasted a large section of a disambig page... I'm still unclear as to why you did that. ---J.Smith 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a slow and subtle approach is best on the two articles in order to avoid all out editwar. I'm moving the various statements into categories so they can be dealt with more efficiently. I'm also endevouring to make it clear when certain claims are nothing but the POV of the cold fusion researchers. Once the claims are worded in accordance with NPOV I think it will be easier to remove the baseless ones. Jefffire 10:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you still the translator, or should we find another? I notice the German article recently lost its star. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As I recently told SOPHIA, trying to find NPOV on Jesus is like trying to balance a pencil on its sharpened point. There are too many forces pulling it in different directions.

CTSWyneken has been busy with his RfA and conflicts over the Martin Luther page. As for myself, this weekend I've found myself losing arguments with people who dispute my contention that "half sibling"="shares one parent" and that entombment = "buried in a tomb." Either I'm crazy, or suddenly logic and dictionary definitions have become OR and POV. We have some neutral historians on the page now User:John Kenney and User:Mrdarcey who will hopefully keep the article from becoming too much of a Sunday School lesson during the Article Improvement Drive. I'm tempted to take a Wikibreak to tell you the truth.

What's really got my nerves on edge is that the latest allegations of a Christian Cabal, now called DWEEC, has gone off-site and led to harrassment against User:KHM03, his family, and his colleagues. This double blue site is very similar to content on User talk:John1838 and User talk:J1838. What's worse, SOPHIA tells me that Rob tells her he is being impersonated on Wikipedia, ie User:Robsteadman is being used by someone other than Robert Steadman.

I'm quite frazzled and am tempted to take a Wikibreak. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not just me. Here's an example. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "half brother" refers to the relationship between Jesus and James: same mother, different father (no human father for Jesus if you believe in the Virgin Birth). I found out that some Protestants reject the term for its genetic connotations: one person asked if God has genes. (Huh?) I've known many other Protestants who accept the term because it simply denotes parentage; if they think of genetics at all, they say the Virgin Birth is a miracle that cannot be explained by genetics. It's hard to tell without a DNA sample ;) All I meant to do was to add the Protestant perspective on the brothers and sisters of Jesus to the Catholic and Orthodox interpretations that were already there.

Drogo is arguing that "entombment" is POV-pushing, but he's perfectly OK with "buried in a tomb." It's on the Talk:Jesus page. I can't make sense of it, and I came close to losing my temper. Then Drogo and John K got into it on their talk pages. Well, Homestarmy had a sense of humor about it, anyway: it's English language fundamentalism. Maybe I should ask him about the grapes. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is obviously POV – Where is the Pro/Con section? ... (to borrow a recent trollage from talk:Chas Darwin ;) ...dave souza, talk 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The con is in the Jesus-Myth article, or possibly the Yeshu article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the argument. I commented. The whole thing sickens me. Agape my ass. Everyday, I understand more and more why I jettisoned religion twenty-some years ago. The genetic question was a rational question. (Of course, every "good Christia person" better hope there never is any genetic evidence -- the whole religion goes down in flames if the body is ever found.) One other point: not all Chrtistians accept the virgin birth -- many see it for what it was: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for young girl that led to the creation of a myth that became canonised in the NT (well, not in all of it). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but a local church charmingly sent us an Easter Blessings card with "For God so loved the world.." etc. from John 3.16, but it stopped before "he that believeth not is condemned", which Darwin described as a damnable doctrine. So I put it on my mantelpiece. ..dave souza, talk 23:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, not too far off topic. And it is a damnable (in both meanings) doctrine. Ah, but since we created the gods in our own image, we're allowed to slop the Abrahamic god around from nice to mean to neutral at will. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Agape": Yes, we do have a long way to go to live up to the ideal, don't we? It seems to me that those who don't believe in the Virgin Birth would say that Jesus must have had a human father, be it Joseph or Pandera or someone else. I'm still not sure where the "God genes" comment was coming from, but I overreacted to Ted. When I find myself acting like this, then it is time to withdraw. I did find Guettarda's comments to be rational. Of course, no DNA sample, no way to test the hypotheses. I suppose we could just ask User:Jesus Christ for a sample. ;)

Ah, well. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a very long way to go. I think I understand your frustration though. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, if you wish to ask an admin to lock the page, go right ahead. I don't understand what Drogo's saying now--we already cite the Qur'an. I made sure to ask for the proper suras some time ago. I just wish we had a Qur'an gateway that we could use like we use biblegateway.com. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I contacted a couple admins, I might (or maybe it would be better if you did it -- or maybe not, hmmm) have to go through WP:AN/I. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm beginning to think that Sartre was right about Hell. Other people indeed. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "Did Jesus come to bring peace or a sword?", a better quote might be "Jesus wept." Well, the page has been locked, and I think it wise at this point to withraw and let the rams butt heads. See you around. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We'll see how groggy they get, but I'm groggy enough as it is. Since you've worked on the currently totally disputed Adam and Eve article, perhaps you could check my work at Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few citation tags! The grape/fig/wheat interpretations of the fruit were there when I came to the article, all cited to Brachot 40a of the Talmud. I found the Aish HaTorah stuff online, and most of the rest from other Wikipedia articles. Not sure where to find sources.

Sorry to hear about your troubles at Adam and Eve. The tree article doesn't get as much attention, so hopefully an edit war won't break out there.Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the article on Thomas Warton? The article once refers to his "most natural" sonnet as being called "To the River Lodon" and once as "To the River Loden". Would you happen to know which is correct? Thanks. -- Ec5618 21:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

--nsandwich 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cute user name. I welcomed you.

I'm an admin over there, but then nsandwich seemed to be handing out adminships like door prizes ;) I've been concerned about tension between fundamentalist Homestarmy and Jehovah's Witness InkyButton. The rest of us seem to get along OK. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Knowing your keen interest in foreign languages I though you might care to have a swatch at this BBC link, though be warned. Some of the content contained therein may be considered unsuitable for children or those of a sensitive nature. And uses the dreaded RealPlayer, ..dave souza, talk 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What does this word mean?? It most likely means to make English out of from another language. What language was it in before your edit?? Georgia guy 01:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It was Amerrikun. See article talk page for details. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That would pretty well sum it up. Jim62sch 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That Richard Amerik has a lot to answer for. Prefer Scotticise meself. ..dave souza, talk 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Maurician? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch it, ot I'll just rewrite the damned article in Klingon. ;P Jim62sch 01:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know, but unfortunately I have very little idea what you are talking about. Your comment was all Greek to me. :) If there is something wrong with the 666 article would you mind making the corrections yourself? I don't know how willing you are to do that seeing as you are a self-proclaimed skeptic who imagines a world with no religion too. :)

Seriously though, if you'd be willing to help out it would be most appreciated!

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Jim, why not review Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) and their associated talk page? CTS asked me to, and drboisclair invited me to vote, but I really don't have anything to add. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Since I had the article locked, I'll ask to have it semi-protected (keep out the anons) if five of you sign below?"

Well, we now have 8 votes.

Some people are starting to get impatient.

I've been stuck trying to de-POV True christianity.

We live in interesting times. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 00:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Leopold Bloom that you might like to consider for the wiki article:

"[T]here are no verifiable facts about Jesus of Nazareth…. There is not a sentence concerning Jesus in the entire New Testament composed by anyone who ever had met the unwilling King of the Jews."

It comes from here: http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2006/balint.html

PiCo 12:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP:Dense page, so I don't know. I do remember explaining to him that the name "Jesus" goes back further than Middle English—which should, of course, be obvious. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, we're not the only editors that use the word "Dude." A while ago, someone left a message on Talk:Jesus saying "Dude, don't vandalize Jesus." It's a long archive, but that's where I came in. (Man, archive 22 in January and archive 52 in May? Methinks we talk too much). I found the page in ALL CAPS, but, ah, it's not my place to judge whether or not Drogo is being dense. People would take that as a personal attack.

Cross-eyed sheep? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about Mary, but a Christian would say that Jesus was definitely cross-eyed. He had his eye on the cross the whole time, and the Romans finally nailed him to it. :0) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to appear dense or indeed off topic, this reminds me of the ambiguous sentence used by John Sladek, which from memory was "She bears each cross carefully" :) ...dave souza, talk 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The request for arbitration/Sam Spade has been accepted. This is the evidence sub-page, and this the workshop sub-page. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Jim, I know you're a skeptic and all, but I object to your deeming Mormon an "imaginary person." I believe he was a real live person, and, while I can't prove it, there are millions of others who agree with me. Now, I'm too much of a newbie to Wikipedia to know whether or not an LDS historical figure should be listed on the year pages, but saying he is imaginary is going too far in my opinion. I don't think you can prove that assertion anymore than I can prove my assertion that he did exist. In short, I think if you want to make an objection to my edit, go ahead and object, but don't base it solely in your opinion. Matatigre36 06:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jim, I appreciate the apology and feedback, as well as the explanation to my question on the whole "matatigre"/"matador de tigres" thing (I've been wondering about that for a long time). I'm fine with leaving Mormon (and other Book-of-Mormon-related prophets) off of the year pages, especially since I just remembered that there is a Book of Mormon chronology page that I contributed to. That seems like a more appropriate place for these anyway. Well, I guess in the end, I'm glad I made the 311 edit as it gave me a chance to make a new friend. Again, thanks...for staying cool and keeping an open mind.

By the way, avid reader that you are, have you by chance ever read the Book of Mormon? I don't want to turn all missionary on you, but it is definitely my favorite book and I think you'd enjoy it too. I only say that because I found it interesting that you consider yourself a skeptic, but still have a keen interest in things of a religious nature (e.g. the Pope, Adam and Eve, Jesus, etc.)... Anyway, cheers! Matatigre36 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, re your comment above, I don't think anything in my comment indicated a fight. I was making a point in a reasonable way. Did you find anything about my comment problematic? Elizmr 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim---Honestly, I'm finding it kind of ironic that you are on my case for bolding a comment, and when Sloat slings around comments which assume bad faith it does not deserve a mention. It also seems necessary to get on my case about "sarcasm" I already said a comment wasn't intended as such, and when Hunter says something wildly sarcastic about a blog source ("I know you love him because he says what you all want to hear...", below, it slides right by. If you are going to "police" the page, please at least try to be even handed about it. Elizmr 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What's this all about on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics:

Talk:Juan Cole Involved in a censorship dispute. Loom91 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think censorship was really the problem here. Moreover, do we really need to put one more dispute on the dispute stack in dealing with this article? --CSTAR 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Jim. About the bolding, I know perfectly well that it is like shouting. Frankly, Sloat wasn't listening and shouting was necessary. Have you looked through the attacks and invective that were pouring out of his mouth???? You might note that after I bolded Sloat actually read what I wrote rather than just dismissing it, and we are able to finally begin to have a dialog. This, hopefully will lead to getting a good article written.

I have to say that after what went down on the page, which was very unbalanced in terms of the personal attacks that were doled out and how they were aimed, I have lost alot of my previous naieveite about the Wikipedia community. I now have have zero tolerance for personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from anyone, even administrators. Elizmr 01:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put the content of this page on your new User:Jim62sch/sandbox2 page. The article 100/sandbox is about to be speedily deleted, since a sandbox belongs to a user page. Therefore I copied the content, so that it won't be lost for you. JoJan 17:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just checking in. Lately we've been discussing:

• Is Christianity monotheism or tritheism? And should it be compared to Islam or Zoroastrianism?
• What is heresy? Currently in mediation.
• Was Jesus a bastard? And what was his sexual orientation?

Well, maybe I've just gone crazy. So, what have you been up to these days? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

hi jim. i saw you are interested in the ancient gr wiki source and so i checked your user page. from what i know the correct version of archimedes motto was δος μοι πα στω και ταν γαν κινήσω (he spoke in doric gr thus, η=α). i ve checked the spelling with an internet search, so im quite sure its correct. keep in touch--Greece666 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You probably are right on Cicero. Regarding the meaning of κινώ in attic, i can only hope that archimedes did not have naughty thoughts about the earth. :) best--Greece666 22:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re this: "(→Notes - Please DO NOT ADD CUSTOM FONT ATTRIBUTES. Read the manual of style!)" -- I read it, I see no specific prohibition. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I cite from WP:MOS#Formatting_issues:

"Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is, font-size: 80%; not an absolute size, for example, font-size: 8pt."

This is a featured article. Please don't make it go against the manual of style for no good reason. Besides, the manual of style also reads that the <font> tag is deprecated and will make Wikipedia pages fail XHTML validation. If you must use different colors (and no, this article must not), use <span>. —Michiel Sikma, 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't read it as a strict prohibition, and I disagree with you regarding need. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. If people were allowed to freely change font colors and families, we'd have articles with big red Comic Sans MS typefaces. It's not up to the editor to decide on such things. The reason why it doesn't explicitly state this is because it's kind of expected that people don't start radically changing font styles. That's very counterproductive. Please don't edit it back in. Like stated, formatting issues should not be dealt with except in special cases. The Nostradamus article is not a special case. —Michiel Sikma, 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, figure captions aren't normal text. It's all part of a single visual presentation. Guettarda 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether having different image captions in different articles is good or necessary, if there are new styles to be invented for particular things, they should be either done in site-wide css, or at least as templates, so that they stay consistent across articles. Including css in article source is never good. Zocky | picture popups 15:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mule fritters, Zocky. In addition, Guettarda just raised my point: the font adds ambiance and harms none. And I don't want to hear about color-blindness -- I fail that test on 4 of 6 panels (yep, red-green). Besides, instead of worrying about trivial slop like that, why not get over to the article and revert some vandalism. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely baffling. Let me line up some points. Custom font formatting...

1. Reduces consistency
2. Reduces usability
3. Makes pages fail validation (if <font> is used)
4. Is against the Manual of Style
5. Isn't encyclopedic except in very distinct exceptions
6. Prevents users from choosing the font they want to read their text in
7. Is just generally very ugly; most wikipedians are not designers.

If you continue to edit pages with custom font colors, which is against a lot of things, I'll revert them. And a whole lot of other people will revert them as well. In fact, persistently doing this could even be considered vandalism. I'm glad that the article didn't contain those font styles anymore after Simetrical edited them out the last time. He's absolutely right in his edit summary: Wikipedia is not the place to try out random font styles. *Especially* not with deprecated tags. I rest my case. —Michiel Sikma, 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Preceding comments were posted on Jim62sch's talk page.)

And just who the hell are you? Why not find more important things to deal with, or would that be too difficult? As for your threatening tone, you might want to rethink your attitude. Additionally, before making your silly accusations of potential vandalism, why don't you try to discuss things without coming across like a stormtrooper. Quite frankly, you seriously need work as far as manners and civilty go. As for this, "If you continue to edit pages with custom font colors, which is against a lot of things, I'll revert them.", given that I've not chaged it back, your snide smart-ass commenty was unnecessary. In addition, you have essentially threatened an edit-war -- not good form. Now, unless you want this to become a become a pissing match, how about of you mind your business, and I'll mind mine. Are we clear on this? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (Preceding comments were posted on —Michiel Sikma's talk page.)

You have no authority to talk to me like that. Please don't be so hostile to me simply for telling you that I will prevent misuse of MediaWiki's HTML parsing functions. You violated rules and I stated that if you were to do it again, I would revert it. Maybe you are the one who should apologize for persistently being against the manual of style. You're completely ignoring what I have to say. Instead of talking down to me and even saying that this "is not important business", you should rather acknowledge that using different font formatting, with deprecated tags none the less, is bad practice. —Michiel Sikma, 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, mind your own business -- you are not the "Wiki Style" cop. I already noted that I was not reverting the change, that should be sufficient for you. I owe you no apology -- I owe you nothing. Got it? Now, as I said before, "unless you want this to become a pissing match, how about of you mind your business, and I'll mind mine." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop the hostility, both of you. Approach eachother as strangers again, and try to reason with eachother.

Now, I'm afraid I agree with Michiel Sikma and Zocky on this one. Wikipedia's layout is standardised for a reason. Readability for one, identifiability for another. Identity. Please realise that whether the changed font adds 'ambiance' is debatable, and that I have never come across a precedent for this, suggesting, at the least, that community support for this sort of rogue formatting is lacking.

I'm afraid I must also find that Michiel Sikma's promise to revert your changes to the font does not constitute hostility or even uncivility. You had just (stubbornly) stated that you didn't care about several logical reasons for keeping standard formatting ('mule fritters', indeed). He was responding to your refusal to abide by the WP:MOS. Consider that, by warning you, he may have been attempting to prevent an edit war, for example. Your reply however, was far from civil, and from my point of view, the first openly hostile post.

Jim62sch, please reconsider your stance (instead of simply conceding). Michiel Sikma raises some very good points. I'm afraid you may be in danger of claiming ownership. You have no right to tell another editor to leave your article. -- Ec5618 22:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I might have sounded like I was trying to command you. Really, I didn't intend to come off like that. I think that I should just drop this discussion, since I don't think you're going to do anything wrong. I still don't think that adding custom formatting to articles is a good idea unless it's for reasons of usability. Again, sorry. Let's just continue doing our thing! —Michiel Sikma, 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this, if you have an issue with the article, please discuss it, rather than reverting to four day old versions without any comment. For great justice. 15:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a number of changes to the Bill Gothard article and provided reasons for these changes on the talk page for that article. I included new information about the groups that are criticising Gothard, which is certainly relevant to determining the importance of the criticism itself. I also removed material that was based on the self-published personal website of an individual, because the policies of Wikipedia prohibit using such sources -- and especially so in articles about living persons. Before you revert such changes you should provide some guidance on the talk page to explain yourself. I want to develop a consensus for the edits -- and I believe that if enough editors get involved with the issues and start a discussion -- we can make this article better.Vivaldi (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

However I am not a mind-reader, so when you just hit revert and don't respond to my points on the talk pages, it leaves me with the impression that you don't want to contribute to any discussion or compromise. Hopefully that isn't the case. Please contribute to the discussion and respond to my comments on the talk page. Vivaldi (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You have removed material which is sourced to WP:RS. That is vandalism. Please stop your disruptive editing practices. Isarig 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Snickering over someone's inability to revert an edit until twenty four hours have elapsed is not amusing nor proper conduct of a Wikipedian. -- 68.224.247.234

Actually, Nevada, it was a polite warning since you seem keen on edit-warring. Edit-warring is not amusing nor proper conduct of a Wikipedian. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't lecture on edit-warring when you were keen on reverting yourself, Jim. -- 68.224.247.234

I'd say it was pretty obvious that consensus was against "treats of", wouldn't you? Of course, it's rather irrelevant now as the entire intro was a copyvio.

Note too, that I did not revert == Classical, Quantum, and Modern physics ==, although your edits were not truly factual: "it generally became evident to the physical community that it would be preferable for every known description of nature to be "quantized" is not entirely true and smacks of a pro-QM POV that was not embraced by the entire scientific community. Additionally, relativity and quantum mechanics are not wholly compatible, which is something GUT, string theory and M-theory have tried/are trying to resolve. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This segment in the Classical, Quantum, and Modern Physics section was not written by me and I actually prefer the original state of this portion of the article when it was entitled Classical and Modern Physics, though lacking the relation of quantum mechanics alone to classical physics.

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.

Please avoid comments like the following:

That's a really good point. Of course, now that we know where Ed stands on materialism (it's evil, positively evil), we can probably guess that his edits on the subject mightn't quite fit within the parameters of NPOV.

I have never given my personal view of materialism, and anyway it's irrelevant. You should assume good faith. You're accusing me of violating (or planning to violate) NPOV. Please withdraw this false accusation. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Left on Ed Poor's discussion page:

Come now Ed, you know you implied an opinion on materialism (and your edit history does indeed speak volumes). Thus, what you term a personal attack, was in reality, an observation based on nearly a year's experience. I'm sorry you took it as an attack, but that was not the intent. Oh, BTW, should you wish that I post an NPA warning on your page each time you start your "FM and his gang" bit? I will, if you'd like. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim, It's true that I edit from a non-scientific viewpoint, specifically a history and sociology of science viewpoint. Historians of science generally look as conflicts over scientific issues in a quite different way from scientists, and I think such perspectives are an important part of Wikipedia's goal of a neutral point of view, as a supplement to scientific viewpoints (and, in the case of ID and other forms of creationism, religious viewpoints as well). But when have you observed me edit from a supernatural point of view? Incivility is the reason for my oppose vote; I supported the nomination of JoshuaZ and there are other editors with whom I disagree regarding what the ID article (and pseudoscience-type articles) should be like but whom I would support in an RfA.--ragesoss 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This notice is here just because I'm following process. I think you're already aware that I'm nominating this image for deletion. —Bkell (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just letting you know that you (presumably inadvertently) created Nostradamus/archive6 in article space rather than talk space. I've moved it to Talk:Nostradamus/archive6. Oldelpaso 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Depression1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You tagged this image with {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}, but the page you give as the source says at the bottom: "Copyright © 1998-2002 SLM & Healthy Living. All Rights Reserved." Do you have evidence that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL? If so, please provide this evidence on the image description page. Let me know if you have questions. —Bkell (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete the image myself. I'll go ahead and nominate it for deletion, though. —Bkell (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They are hard enough to deal with without you giving them pointers - —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)