Jump to content

User talk:JimWae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ta bu shi da yu (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 3 August 2005 (Jesus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi -- This is my talk page -- Leave Messages below

  • If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
  • If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.
  • If appropriate, I will move talk from here to relevant article talk page, so that everyone can share in the discussion.

Tiffany

It's a bit mysterious to me. I have several references (including Encyclopedia Britannica) that say the mansion was in Oyster Bay. Personally I don't quite know. If you are sure it is in Cold Spring Harbor, could you add a reference there? Many thanks.

I did: http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Tiffany/listlau.htm Oyster Bay used to include lots more terrttory than it does now - anything near the water & near Oyster Bay - ferry & all that I guess -- also http://www.morsemuseum.org/laurelton.html and http://members.aol.com/obhistory/freejas.htm

It might actually be in Laurel Hollow, New York a village (in the Town of Oyster Bay) that likely was once part of the hamlet of Oyster Bay - and next to CSH (which is in Suffolk County) http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-historytown-hist002y,0,7507282.story --JimWae 00:13, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

User:SNIyer1

Just to let you know. If you want to start a RfC about SNIyer1's continual addition of melodrama, refusal to discuss issues on the JFK assassination talk page and refusal to respond to comments on SNIyer1's talk page, I will support you. jguk 22:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeh, she's become a nuisance - how does one go about starting an RFC?

She keeps writing in 1st person & also as a supposed omniscient person (her) who can tell what EVERYONE feels. Encyclopedia should not focus on how "people" felt but on facts & events.

She must be very upset about something - not just 9/11 - she has added non-sequitur entries to many funeral sections. --JimWae 20:07, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Did you guys ever get that RfC started? I'm willing to sign on. Gamaliel 20:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I saw your comments on SNIyer's talk page. She's doing it to me too. I'm currently rewriting Pan Am Flight 103 to try to improve the writing and expand the content. She makes mostly minor changes (several in a row, without marking them as minor); and the non-minor changes she makes are often factually incorrect, irrelevant, silly, in the wrong place, or non-encyclopedic. For example: "The aftermath of the bombing saw the best of the people of Lockerbie. In the days after the bombing, they pleaded for relatives of the victims to come so that they could get comfort. In the time that has followed, the people in Lockerbie have formed a friendship with relatives of the victims. They also have helped them locate where their loved ones fell when the aircraft exploded. Over the years, they have shown that they will never forget what had happened, but they're keen to look ahead and reclaim their town for the future." Apart from the POV, it's bad English, and the first part is false: the people of Lockerbie did not plead with relatives to come. An effort was made, in fact, to stop relatives travelling to the site. I've left three notes on her talk page, but she doesn't respond. I was half thinking of preparing this article for a featured article nomination, so her additions are becoming a nuisance, because in reverting them, it will look as though there was an edit war, which could affect the nomination. However, I know nothing about her, and so don't know how harshly (or not) to address the issue with her. Can you advise? SlimVirgin 04:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Slim --She never responds on any talk page - neither hers nor the one for an article. I have concluded she is an elderly lady, likely living in eastern Canada and that English is not her first language. I also suspect that she skips her meds some days - but that is another matter. My strategy has been to just revert her & put extensive advice to her in Edit summary. In time, she seems to have learned a bit about what NOT to do, but remains a nuisance. I do not know how to start a RFC on her - and doubt it would be worth the time. I suspect she must at least read her talk page -- but that is frustratingly uncertain & I have had some luck with the edit summaries. In-line comments also help - comment out her entries & add your reasons inside the comment - then at least she can hardly avoid reading them if she tries to edit again - and I think it helps her to REMEMBER the reasons not to write some of what she does. Hope that helps --JimWae 04:28, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
  • Oh, sometimes sarcasm helps in in-line comments too. Ask her (how do we know it's a her? - that's an intersting Q for linguistic analysis, no?) if she thinks the meal choices on the flight should also be included in the article --JimWae 04:45, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

LOL, yes. Good idea about the edit summaries and the inline comments: thanks, I hadn't thought of doing that. A little online research may have revealed who she is; I believe, in fact, it's a young boy. If you're interested, I'll e-mail you the details: as they're his/her personal details, I don't want to leave them here. SlimVirgin 05:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

nice touch ...

... and i hope, the final touch, on resolving the eisenhower funeral thing. i got briefly into that "give and take" last month, and didn't realize there was more to it than met the eye.Sfahey 03:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Litre symbol

I'm a newcomer to this myself, but since both l and L are accepted symbols according to the CGPM, I don't think you should be making wholesale changes in that just for the sake of change. Leave them as you find them. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vancouver

I like what you did with the move of the picture and maps in the Vancouver article. Keep up the good work! Sunray 08:40, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Decay chains

We meet again. Some while ago, you created at Half-life a table listing three decay chains. I then dragged it all the way over to Radioactive decay, and there finally confronted it and become very confused about its significance. Please see talk:Decay chain, where I'm presently seeking enlightenment on this question. --Smack 19:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I created the other (generic) table:  % remaining after so many half-life terms

--JimWae 23:16, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Ah. I see my mistake. The table of decay chains was added two years ago by an anonymous user. Just my luck. Well then, I'm off to the Reference Desk. --Smack 20:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kilogram

What exactly did you mean as "base unit". I'm just confused by this term, as it sounds kind of arbitrary. (why isn't kilometer a base unit?)--ZayZayEM 03:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A base unit is the unit in terms of which the other units are derived. Traditionally it had no prefix. Kilogram is exceptional in that it has a prefix. See SI base unit --JimWae 04:11, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Bias and personal

I think you need to take a chill pill and read your history, you have made it a very salvery biased pov, slaver was involed not the only or mojor issue, second if you want to personaly insult me on my writing then do it on my page. --Boothy443 06:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about you read Corwin Amendment that you cited, then reread what you put up?--JimWae 06:59, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

How about you look at the edit history before you start calling people out. --Boothy443 07:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found this:

User talk:140.142.110.158
Civil War
I agree with your changes on the civil war, and have reverted edits to the contrary that other ppl have done. You might want to regerster for wiki, i fell that this going to be a debate in the coming weeks. --Boothy443 03:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would I bother arguing with an anon? How about you read Corwin Amendment?--JimWae 07:08, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Ok, your point is? --Boothy443 07:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Morrill Tariff

User talk:JimWae/morrill

Canada : Long Knives, Kitchen Accord

Hi. Actually I think both references to night of the long knives and the kitchen accord do not belong in the main article. This type of detail can go in the main article. We are already getting warnings that the Canada article exceeds 32 kb. Compare the Canada article to France and other countries and you will see how excessively detailed it is. Go ahead and remove both references and transfer the ideas to the main article on the Constitution. Who outside of Canada would have any interest in such arcane details? Give some thought to the people who want a quick overview of Canada.--BrentS 19:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Civil War

User:Wighson has been reverting his changes, and I doubt he's gonna be swayed. Any idea what to do? Maybe you should have the page protected. --brian0918™ 05:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Police of JFK

Hello, good sir! It seems we are now the police force on the JFK article. It is very interesting that while our favorite person reverts on JFK, that user has not changed any mateiral, added by others, on state funeral which is another article that this user feels that he/she "owns". What is going on in that persons head? I guess we will just have to be teh revert police until Snlyer1 goes away. Best -Husnock 12Feb05

Lincoln

Some days ago someone reverted the article back two months, un-doing a hell of a lot of improvement. I am trying to put it back together. Please leave it alone.

Are you planning to incorporate all the changes I and others have made in the last day or so? Why are you anonymous? So far it looks like you have done exactly what he did. I am willing to wait & see, but would appreciate answers.

that natural rights stuff & civil rights stuff is either gobblededook or unexplained jargon. Simpler is:
  • He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens


Lincoln on slavery and equality

Even during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln was accused of being inconsistent in his position on slavery. To this day, there are issues surrounding the following somewhat-contrary views he held at one time or another.

  • He believed that slavery was a profound evil that must not be spread to the territories — yet he was willing to tolerate it in the states in which it already existed.
  • He believed the federal government did have power to bar slavery in the territories — yet he maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed.
  • He was willing to tolerate slavery in the states in which it already existed — yet he later advocated its complete abolition.
  • The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves where the measure could not be put into effect — yet left them enslaved where the measure could have been enforced.
  • He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens.

Some of these opposing views are less inconsistent than others. See article: Abraham Lincoln on slavery


How about what's there now?

Lincoln trivia

Do you have any idea what you're getting yourself into? :) Check out what I call the War Between the Wikipedians about this particular bit of trivia. I spectacularly lost that war, BTW. Go figure. Vincent 00:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of the Lincoln article do not seem to have the same determination to remove this or any other trivia - it is a different article --JimWae 00:50, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Half-life

Hi,
I see that I haven't been able to convince you to my reasoning about the table that you recently re-inserted into that article. Could you explain to me why you disagree with my preferred device of guiding the reader to the Exponential decay article? Please reply at Talk:Half-life. --Smack (talk) 03:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


U.S. presidential election pages

Hi:

Thank you for adding the popular vote percentages to the election results boxes in 1852, 1856, and 1860! Also, as you know, I've incorporated your PV and EV totals into Template:end U.S. presidential ticket, and I wanted to thank you for the inspiration. — DLJessup 19:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Lots of synchronicity, wasn't it? Did you even see my Question about how to do it? - cause I did not --JimWae 19:26, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  • Ah, I finally think I understand your comment. You added the data for the PV %ages, but they weren't visible until I made the necessary changes to the template. Unfortunately, you have to add the parameters to the pages before you add them to the template, or the articles look rather ugly during the transition. Is this an appropriate response, or am I totally misinterpreting your comment? — DLJessup 05:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I made an edit that only included an extra carriage return with comment in edit field asking how to get % in tables - but it did not save - not being "differrent" from previous entry. Meanwhile, you were adding the placeholders - then as you did that I added the %#s. Anyway the tables are much more informative now -- thanks--JimWae 08:01, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Next issue

(Wouldn't it be nice if people learned how to use the "+" tab on talk pages? — DLJessup 19:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Gun Politics

I have a serious problem with your POV vandalizing of others work that contradicts your political agenda. Everything I post is factually correct. Mlorrey 03:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • "They are forgetting..." does not belong in an encyclopedia. If you cannot find an alternative way of presenting a point, then perhaps I will - when I get to it. But that will be hard since your point is so easily countered. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog --JimWae 04:52, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
Right to WMDs?
Most people on both sides agree that so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (i.e., biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) cannot have any legitimate purpose in the hands of individuals and that even in non-hostile hands these weapons pose a serious threat due to the risk of even simple accidents during storage or transport. As such, most agree that even the broad protections of the Second Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms do not apply to "WMD's".
However, a few on the gun-rights side (notably Vin Suprynowicz) point out that all American government powers originate with the people. Therefore, they argue, if the American government has the power to own WMDs, the people must have the same power or else they wouldn't have been able to give it to the government. Opponents of this view contend it commits the logical fallacy of division, giving as a counterexample powers of the State to tax, to imprison, and even to execute, which no government empowers to individuals.
Some contend this counterexample is nullified by the fact that armed private citizens can use deadly force "in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state" (NH State Const. Part I, Article IIa) and it is from this self defense/state defense function that the state itself derives its power to execute convicted criminals and engage in warfare. Gun-rights proponents say it is not a fallacy of division, but a matter of partial delegation, just as citizens delegate some powers to their State government, and the same and/or others to the Federal government (like the authority to oversee elections, to tax, to regulate commerce, ban some drugs but not others, etc)

<! I'd agree the gov't derives these powers from an individual right to self-defense delegated to the gov't, but which part of ANY of these is partially RETAINED by individuals? If none is retained, what is the point of mentioning "partial" delegation? > User:JimWae

Those who maintain that Suprynowicz's argument still commits the fallacy of division, argue that the delegation of powers (in the case of nuclear weapons) is not partial but complete, just as, though individuals are permitted to detain or even kill others when the need for defense is imminent, no state allows that any single individual retains any "right" to execute nor to imprison others -- that only the state may execute or imprison (or delegate the carrying out of such to its lawful agents). The argument continues that similarly, it is not the case that all individuals have a right to keep nuclear weapons. -- User:JimWae

However they are forgetting that most states in the US empower the average citizen to effect citizens arrest for felonies and in some cases obligate them to do so. Citizens can also use deadly force to defend others, or their property, or the state (as cited above), not just in cases of imminent danger to themselves alone. Furthermore, in few courts in the nation is a judge allowed to impose the death penalty, only a jury of one's peers can do so in most cases, ergo the power to execute remains in the hands of the average citizen doing their jury duty. -- Somebody Else

"They are forgetting" is POV no matter what follows & does not belong in an encyclopedia. Your own example (jury) points not to an individual right, but to a collective power. Btw, I enjoy shooting - but do not think the right is the only one of all that is "unlimited", and thus do not think every Joe Schmoe is entitled to his own nuclear weapon - as you & Suprynowicz's would seem to be arguing. -- User:JimWae

Jim, i have to agree with you. Hippie be dammed.
--Cuimalo 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Next issue

thx

Thanks for further cleaning up my clarity clean up in the Terrorism article. zen master T 00:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's an article that needs lots of work still, but I will be there from time to time again. --JimWae 00:47, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

New York City

Hi, we had the same idea about the opening para. I'll back off a bit and see what you end up with. Kaisershatner 21:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Defender of Wikipedia

For outstanding efforts in defending Wikipedia from vandalism, in particular the JFK article, I award you the Defender of Wiki Barnstar -Husnock

--Hey, thank you very much, Husnock. I have now noticed vandalism on several articles that seems to be part of a class assignment gone astray --JimWae 19:39, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

re: Ike

This article is/has been v.good for a long time. Unfortunately, were it put forth as FAC, the insidious trench warfare would likely go nuclear. Too bad. Sfahey 16:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SNIyer1

Jim, I've blocked IP 68.196.96.197 for 24 hours for vandalism. As you know, it's SNIyer1. I warned him that I would block him if he continued inserting the schmalz, but it made no difference. I'm having to follow all his edits, deleting the inappropriate ones, and I saw today that you're doing it too, so enough. He's also editing under 68.107.105.71 and 68.95.106.101, and there may be others. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

And as 68.92.125.8, he's been creating puff pieces about non-notable relatives of famous people. I suspect he gets all this stuff from women's magazines and similar. Hence the schmaltzy tone to much of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

ACW edit

It probably isn't a good idea to simply skirt issues. However, the main point of my edit was to simplify the sentence structure--unnecessary compound clauses, incorrect use of en-dashes. Did you object to the North America change? If so, you could have edited that out, not reverted the whole thing. If that was not the problem, let me know what it was and I'll reword it again. Hal Jespersen 19:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--- North America suggests significant battles in Canada & Mexico. One could say "within the present boundaries of the United States" OR, for simpler sentence structure, just let the rest of the article explain it.--JimWae 21:06, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

  • The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought between 11 states of the Southern United States and United States federal forces (mostly from the 23 Northern states that remained in the Union). Following the election of 1860, seven Southern states declared their secession from the U.S. and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. The seceding states took control of federal properties within their territories, leading to the Battle of Fort Sumter and the commencement of hostilities. After this battle, four more Southern states joined the Confederacy. Battles were fought in the Southern states, in some Northern states, and in some U.S. territories.

OR

  • The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought between 11 states of the Southern United States (joined together to form the Confederate States of America) and United States federal forces (mostly from the 23 Northern states that remained in the Union). Following the election of 1860, seven Southern states declared their secession from the U.S. and formed the Confederacy. The seceding states took control of federal properties within their territories, leading to the Battle of Fort Sumter and the commencement of hostilities. After this battle, four more Southern states joined the Confederacy. Battles were fought in the Southern states, in some Northern states, and in some U.S. territories.

I prefer the second, although you have omitted the point about 23 becoming 25 during the war. As I said, none of this level of political detail is of interest to me; I wanted to simplify a convoluted sentence. I think this full article is overly long, but don't wish to contribute to the heat by excising anything substantive, even if it clearly belongs elsewhere. I also don't get exercised if an important point doesn't find its way into the first paragraph of an article.

[I didn't reply immediately because I expected to see your reply in my Talk page. Most Wiki authors I've dealt with do that. Is there an accepted method or is it simply random?] Hal Jespersen 02:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I've no idea whether this is standard or not - but I think it is easier to follow the flow of the conversation if it is all in one spot, eh?
Well, easier in one way, but I have no idea when you update your Talk page with the reply unless I watch it like the other articles.
OK with me. But use ndash instead of hyphen and I would spell out 11 and 23 in the opening paragraph of the piece. Hal Jespersen 11:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bar abba

Thanks for your contributions to Bar abba. I've proposed that the article should be merged into the main Barabbas article. This would help add a little depth to the latter. Bar abba is just a 'clever' way of writing the name Barabbas, which is better known in English. What do you think? --Gareth Hughes 12:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I cannot see any reason not to merge the articles, & every reason to do so. --JimWae 19:04, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Vancouver pic

Hi

I am using IE6 on WinXP Pro SP2 using my laptop with 1024x768. My desktop is using the same setting except the screen resolution is 1280x1024.

Your edits appears on both of my screens as a HUGE gap after the opening paragraph for the length of the info table; and the aerial pic is right below the table; then there is another gap below the pic because the table of contents is taking up some more room.

I do not know why it is like that.

And why is it that i have to log in again to post a message here? weird. LG-犬夜叉 07:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


Now it's cool. Though I'm not sure about putting a pic at the very top, since the format for city pages isn't like that.

However since the pic is visually appealing, I think it will be fine.

Sept 11th page is normal, I didn't see any gaps anywhere. LG-犬夜叉 07:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Help needed on the Ethics article

Unfortunately, someone set up an article parallel to our article on Ethics, in violation of Wikipedia policy. That parallel article violated NPOV by acting as a blog for one man's personal views, a person that also happens to be hard-banned user. Please see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Simple view of ethics and morals
Thanks for your time. RK 20:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of deists

Hi. I saw your comments on the Talk page of the list. You're wrong about Antony Flew. He has had a quite recent change of mind and may now properly be classified as a deist. http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html --Christofurio 01:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. could be so. I did remember he had said some of his remarks were totally misinterpreted. He has even since then rejected some of what he thought might be good arguments for first cause - but I guess he is kind of a Deist after all, now. I stand corrected. See: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 for a less biased source.--JimWae 02:04, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Jim, I do indeed know what a Deist is, and have started my organization into the logical applications of it. Flew is indeed a Deist. You will find my name listed on www.deistnet.com, and also as one of the original signers of the Universist Mission Statement.

  • Yeh, turns out people were using his 2001 article to rebut a 2004 claim. He has since 2004 already backtracked on the validity of his reasons for the change. See http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369.
  • You get points for even knowing what the Vienna Circle was at your age, but you lose lots of points for adding your own name to the article - and lose more still for the others.
  • I'd suggest instead of saying "Still, the majority of modern philosophical scholars believe that despite Hume's devastating critique of the design argument, he remained a Deist, and not an atheist", the more interesting phrasing would be to state that debate over whether he was an atheist or a deist remains unresolved. I think many do not believe one way or the other --JimWae 05:10, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Next Topic

US population

List of countries by population references http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl No mention is made on that page about month the estimate is for - and even though a year appears, its meaning is not totally clear. Note also the date of the estimate.

How more reliable can one be than the source I gave & sourced? http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Why keep unsourced data that seems to have been superseded?

  • particularly when it is for some future date - which technically is a projection rather than an estimate

AND -- a population clock is more interesting, no?

Do a search for 295,734,134 US -- mostly all you'll get are mirror sites of wikipedia --JimWae 05:20, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

-HEY Cantus, don't you think it would be appropriate to give reasons for re-reverting this - those figures are based on old data --JimWae 05:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

LOOK HERE http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbprint.html --JimWae 06:01, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I've already told you that if you want to change the data for the US population, go to the reference article, and edit it there, and then edit the US article. -Cantus…☎ 06:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to edit that whole table just so I can put an accurate & current estimate in the US article - and I am not going to calculate the new US July 2005 figure myself. You are not working with me! The figure I inserted is fully sourced --JimWae 06:17, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

You seem to want consistency -- even if the hobgoblined data is outdated. My version is an estimate instead of a projection, more accurate, and (referencing the population clock) more interesting --JimWae 06:25, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

By rereverting a 3rd time w/o ever addressing any of my numerous points and by insisting on a foolish consistency, I see --JimWae 21:08, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

  • you are determined to prove that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
  • you are not a reasonable person
  • you do not want to risk not getting your own way
  • it is pointless to try to reason with you

James Madison

Hey, thanks for catching my mistake on James Madison. I cant believe I didnt notice that. --Bonus Onus 00:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Canada

I will keep an eye on the infobox as well. Vanman2010 is "a vandal for the Monarchist League"? So they're not all grannies drinking tea? Next you'll be telling me that the Monarchist League has a "Brute Force Committee". ;-) Ground Zero 17:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crittenden Compromise

I've reverted your additions to the Crittenden Compromise article and added that text to Crittenden-Johnson Resolution. The Crittenden Compromise was not the same as the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution: the latter declared that the incipient conflict was not over slavery, whereas the former was an effort to avoid the conflict entirely. I'm fairly certain that none of the prominent Republicans supported the Compromise, although they might well have supported the Resolutions. But it's possible I'm wrong in that respect. -- Trivial 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see what you did -- I assumed falsely. I'll change it back, sorry. -- Trivial 03:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem was the subsection heading (as a "Resolution") and the small paragraph leading into it which confused the two. I removed paragraph and renamed the heading. Hopefully that will solve the problem. I did some google research into Republican of the Compromise, and it seeems that although Seward supported it, most Republicans, including Greeley [1], did not. -- Trivial 03:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

history articles on wikipedia?

Hello Jim, I?m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including the writing of history on Wikipedia. We?d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu


Sounds interesting - I am going to be very busy the next month - and cannot plan exact times to chat - so let's start with e-mails --JimWae 18:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

AD vs. CE

You keep reverting ALL changes I make to the Jesus article. Maybe some of these are reverted accidently in your attempts to replace AD with CE. Maybe you just want everything your way all the time - which is it?

Regarding the use of AD as against CE, if you can show me anywhere in the Wikipedia style guidelines that state AD notation is POV then I'll stop using it right now! If you can't, then please stop trying to push your agenda (whatever that might be) into the Jesus article. AD is not POV. To use non-christian dating systems in articles about christianity is nothing short of an insult to the followers of that religion. Have a look at Britannica. They have no problem with AD/BC in their article about Jesus, so why do you? Arcturus 23:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about AD vs. CE, but I really wish you'd stop reverting my parentheses. The paragraph reads better with them. --Chowbok 03:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I respectfully disagree with your arguments. The point of the paragraph is to establish the birth and death dates of Jesus. The bit about 6th-century monks making an accounting mistake is not directly related to that main point, but is there only to clear up confusion about the dates. Therefore, it should go in parentheses; it is a classic example of a parenthetical aside.
I don't see anything in The Chicago Manual of Style that says parentheses are to be avoided. It's a little unclear about how to put a complete sentence within parentheses, but it does say "A parenthetical enclosure of more than one sentence should not be included within another sentence" (emphasis mine), which implies that it's okay if it's only one sentence, as is the case here. Of course, Chicago Manual of Style doesn't necessarily equal Wikipedia house style, so if you can point me to a Wikipedia source that contradicts this I will defer to your version.
As far as "more important issues" in a revert war, well, more important to whom? I find the entire issue you guys are fighting over rather dull. B.C., B.C.E., who cares? Now grammatical and stylistic fights, on the other hand... that's something I can argue over for days. --Chowbok 04:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I was perusing through the edit history of American Civil War and couldn't help notice your admirable defense of the integrity of the article in several instances. I'm particularly refering to a recent spasm of edits by a user I have encountered previously, whom I consider to be one of the most insidious purveyors of POV garbage on Wikipedia. I'm extremely glad that someone else has taken a stand against this person. If you ever need backup regarding this, I am at your service. -- Decumanus 04:47, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Jesus, again

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [2], [3]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's religious beliefs: Pantheist, Deist, and more?

Einstein believed in as he put it "Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." Spinoza is the founder of Pantheism. Deism is the polar opposite of pantheism, because Deism is a form of dualism - not monism - and believes in a transcendant clockmaker god... not in a pantheistic immanent God - <please sign your article here>

Just because he comments favorably on Spinoza a few times, does not mean he is not a Deist. The quote in article uses much of the terminology of Deism & is uses a lot of language that suggests a god that is a separately identifiable entity. Deism has often been criticized for its pantheism, as pantheism has often been for its near atheism -- also see pandeism & panentheism & panendeism--JimWae 17:29, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

re: history articles on Wikipedia

Hi Jim, if you'd like to email me when you have some time I'm still very interested in speaking with you. Thanks, Joan Fragaszy. jfragasz at gmu dot edu

Fix?

I don't see you fixing anything, but I do see you reverting everything. Well, I'm out. And I did not appreciate the clumsy & repetitive language comment, it would not hurt you to be diplomatic. The soverign nation thing is nonesense, it is rarely used in other countries' leads; you deleted the Quebec referene. Area is more obscure than planet. Territories size versus population is noteworthy. I would have expected a more careful approach from yourself, so naturally I am dissapointed. Don't feel obliged to respond to this comment. El_C 16:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, aside from my suggestion for you to read more countries' leads, I note that you didn't even keep very minor fixes I implemented, such as wikiing of the North Pole. Again, I find it unfortunate, but again don't feel obliged to respond to this comment. El_C 16:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Please refer to my response here. El_C 01:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

Jim, User:E Pluribus Anthony and I had a bit of a conversation about this on our talk pages. His last edit was a compromise that we worked out to address his valid point that what was there was too long and involved for an overview. Ground Zero 20:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had the convo with Anthony on our talk pages because I wanted to get his attention - I was afraid he might not read the Talk:Canada page. Let's move the discussion there. Ground Zero 20:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks for the discussion regarding this; it is appreciated. I'm still wondering about the provinces and territories characterisation in the overview. My contention is that just because Canada's territories are federally administered does not mean they are not federated (as the territories are federal creations and this is implicit in a Canadian context) nor does it mean they do not comprise the federal state; after all, that is what a federation is (with the political subdivisions and tiered divisions of powers and responsibilities that entails, etc.). Whenever references, elsewhere, describe Canadian political sub/divisions (note the word)...

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/national/can_political_e/referencemap_image_view http://atlas.gc.ca/sitefrancais/english/maps/archives/5thedition/other/referencemaps/mcr4119 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm

they refer to it as having 10 provinces and 3 territories. While it is informative to note that they are 'federally administered,' why not just say they are federal territories? I would actually advocate for the following (for clarity):

Canada is a federation, comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories. OR Canada is a federation which has 10 provinces and 3 territories.

with links to the appropriate definitions. Remember: mentions of territorial administration appear again in the overview, and defined at length in the subarticles.

Thanks!

User:E Pluribus Anthony 20:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deism

Thanks for your edits in deism. The section I edited indeed looks better farther down, where you moved it. However, I still detect advocacy, suggested by the use of the capitalized term — Deism rather than deism. Then look at the revert wars and the harsh, sectarian exchanges on the Talk page between members of various Deist "churches" (which strikes me as ironic, given the purported rationality of self-proclaimed deists). It should be possible to make an article for deism and get away from all this bickering. Wikipedia is no place for advocacy, especially the sneaky kind, using weasel words. You're moving it in the right direction, but I still think it needs work, don't you?   — J M Rice 18:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dual nationalities/citizenships

Why are you both a citizen of the U.S. and Canada? Make up your mind and pick one. After that, owe allegiance to only ONE "country."

Many people, like me, in the U.S. do not like people like you with dual nationalities! YOU CAN NOT OWE ALLEGIANCE TO MORE THAN ONE "COUNTRY"!!! PICK ONE AND STAY WITH IT, OR LEAVE!!!

- Why would I care what people like you like? Why would I bother explaining anything to an anon Dallas IP with no other edits? Are you perhaps projecting your difficulty reconciling your allegiance to the USA with your allegiance to the Confederacy? --JimWae 05:38, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Canada, again

I presume you have not read my response to your comments a few weeks ago. I must say, that they struck me as exhibiting in part a hostile undertone. I urge you to adopt a more collegial manner if you wish to respond to my reply (it's on my talk page), it seems doubtful though that you are interested in establishing any sort of a dialogue on this, and rather, entrenching yourself in your position. I, again, also urge you to read other country leads, esp. of the Commonwealth. I am not calling for unifmormity, but you have done little do demonstrate there is any confusion with regards to Canada being mistaken as ruled by the UK (at least significant enough to note it in the lead) – this point your hitherto response completly neglected to address. Would it be too much for me to request professional discourse from you, JimWae? El_C 03:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice work

Just wanted to say thanks for your great contributions to stuff like Missouri secession and Confederate States of America. Much appreciated. jengod 21:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Canada infobox

Jim, could I have your opinion on the debate I am having with Vanman2010 on this? I like our version - with "parliamentary democracy" before "constitutional monarchy" better, but it sticks in my craw that the monarchists are again trying to turn this article into a platform for their quaint political ideas. If you tell me that I should let sleeping dogs lie, I'll do so. Thanks. Ground Zero 15:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your point against having const monarchy first was right on the mark. He certainly came here with a monarchist agenda, but presently parl. demo is first & I cannot see any way to deny that const monarchy is accurate in part. Your new point about the monarchy as an attempt to stay apolitical is also good -- Perhaps instead of political system it should be "form of government". It is also somewhat strage to have the detail start so far above the line in the info box - other states have used abbreviations, but that looks pretty ugly too --JimWae 15:25, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

If you look I do have parliamentary democracy first and then consituional monarchy. You could make a new section called form of government that would work. My point is it should be there whether some people believe it should or not. Also note I am not part of any monarchists league or any political organisation. My belief is that our ties with Britain and the Commonwealth are dimmininshing then you have people trying to figure out what a Canadian is or who we are as a country, this is why their is a so called idetity crisis today. Look at the culture section for Canada it just talks about the united states or some political policies that are trying to be enacted. The reason why we are a country in the first place was because we were loyal to the crown now that people seem to want to get rid of it what are we? Might as well set up political intergration with the united states because without the crown and the values we once had we are just americans. I am probebly going about these things the wrong way but I don't want my gravestone to say born in Canada died in United States of North America.Vanman2010 6:54, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the solution to the Canadian identity crisis is to look to the UK either (instead of the US). Look to Canada - it is different from the US in many ways. Hereditary power, as in the monarchy, is an anachronism that just feeds the tabloids --JimWae 19:26, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Template:Canada infobox GDP

Yes the figures are for may of 2005. I got them off a economists site so I updated the section. Vanman2010 6:54, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what time period are they for? Certainly not all of 2005. May 2004-Apr 2005? Jan-Dec 2004?--JimWae 18:05, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

January-May 2005 Vanman2010 11:54, 9 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not say so on the page that it is for only part of a year - does this not make comparisons difficult unless every page listing a GDP is updated monthly? Where on Earth is today June 9th? Also, since I know we live less than 80 km apart, I know you responded at 11:54 PDT - not UTC --JimWae 19:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Yes guess you are right do you have any idea what the old values are then? "Where on Earth is today June 9th? Also, since I know we live less than 80 km apart, I know you responded at 11:54 PDT - not UTC" I have no idea what are you trying to say please explain. UTC is the universal time clock? So I am not sure what you mean. Vanman2010 8:11, 11 June 2005 (UTC)

Your dates in your signatures yesterday (Jun 10) were one day behind (Jun 9). They also had PDT times, not UTC times. Did you last respond at 1:11am PDT or 8:11 PDT. It is 11:57am PDT now --JimWae 18:57, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Dieter Manisprechensie

Don't you mean {{VFD}} rather than {{CSD}} for this piece of crap hoax article from the feces-obsessed Eyeon? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Is there a list somewherre of the most common things to put inside {{ }}?--JimWae 18:04, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Time

It is presumptuous and against Wikipedia:Wikiquette to use the comment "leave view you do not understand alone"; Specifically, "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate"; and "Explain reversions in the edit summary box". Please, help the editing process by explaining your thinking! Banno 20:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I will admit I should have hesitated longer & changed the edit summary. I will still ask you to refrain from editing the section that you do seem to have repeatedly disparaged each time you have edited it. Your recent edit turned it into simply a negation of the realist position, without providing any more context - btw, what happened to realism in that paragraph? --JimWae 21:01, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Take it to talk:time Banno 06:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dates

Just to clarify, the dates get wikified on first mention of the year, and then when there is [Month/Date], [Year], correct? Having trouble finding the citation for this. Thanks! Onlyemarie 21:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not know about cases of just years, year & month, nor just month & day, but whenever all 3 appear, they should be wikified Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) --JimWae 21:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

wiki:USA

Thanks for your input Jim.
--Cuimalo 03:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Preemptive war biased? How about Preventive war?

Spacetime and time travel

With regards to your comment in time travel: I think this was mostly the result of bad wording in the original version of the introduction. I've attempted to clean it up. While spacetime is a background, it differs from aether in that it does not impose a preferred frame of reference (the core tenet of relativity is that the laws of physics look the same in all inertial reference frames).

For time travel itself, special relativity and the Lorentz transform note that FTL travel and time travel are equivalent (depending on your viewpoint, motion may look like one or the other), and general relativity defines geometries of spacetime (closed timelike curves) that allow time travel without requiring the traveller to violate the local rules imposed by SR and GR (i.e. traveller doesn't have to teleport or move locally FTL).

I hope this information is useful to you.--Christopher Thomas 19:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crawdaddy

Not sure why you left the 1970s run of Crawdaddt out of your entry, but Paul Williams apparently views it as the same magazine he started -- see, for example, this interview

http://www.rockcritics.com/interview/paulwilliams.html

particularly the last Q.&A. So I've added a short description of that run. Monicasdude 21:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An apology

I don't know if you saw it, I don't know if you cared, but I'm still going to apologize for my snide comment in the most recent United States diff. (I'd give a direct link except it would be obsoleted by the next time an edit is made). --Golbez 02:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Space

Feel free to delete the first two paragraphs if you so desire. Steve block 19:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Canada Culture Z Endings

I never heard of Z being used I have always seen it as an S. Is this some kind of new spelling or special ending? Matthew Samuel Spurrell 8:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Vancouver Sun uses -ize instead of -ise. How long have you been in BC? -ize is the "American" spelling, -ise is the "British", Canadians use some British standards (honour) & some American. Some city's newspapers (maybe Victoria) are more "British". In this case -ize is also more phonetic--JimWae 17:24, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I guess I am just an old timer then still spell things the old British way. I have been in B.C. for about 17 years and I have always seen it used with "ise". The papers used to spell things using american english but the people didn't like it and favoured the British way so most of them spell it that way now, but I guess Wikipedia is using the new american english? Anyway if my posts are using the old way of spelling words let me know so I can convert my posts to the american english one then. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Administrator

How can you tell whether a random Wikipedian is an administrator?? Georgia guy 23:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathaniel Hawthorne pic

Hello. I noticed you changed back the Nathaniel Hawthorne image which size I had modified from "thumbnail" to "frame". I did so in the first place so that the picture, in its real, smaller size, would look much better than this and not appear with such a low resolution. I understand from your edit summary that you fixed the picture so it would be the same size as the others. I also saw that you had previously arranged the three images so that they are all aligned to the right. I do understand that this arrangement (same size and aligned to the right) makes the whole article look better, but I still think it's unfortunate that the first picture looks so bad when it is bigger.

I have a suggestion. In my opinion, the article contains too many pictures for its size. The second image ([4]) is a portrait that is almost identical to Hawthorne's appearance on the last picture ([5]). That illustration is also the one that was added the most recently on the article. I think the second picture should be removed from the article. The first picture could be changed to its normal size, and be aligned to the right of the text at the top of the article. The third picture could be aligned to the right or to the left in the "Writings" section. I think the article would look good that way. What do you think? -- Audrey 5 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)

Canada

There have been some recent edits to Canada that I believe are POV and add too much detail to the politics section. The editor who made them does not agree. Your views would be appreciated. Ground Zero 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

King's "plagurism"

All I see is character assassination based on claimed inadequate referencing by a student according to standards apparently neither taught to King nor demanded of his acedemic work. King wanted a doctorate. The proffessors wanted a paying student. Neither were trying to turn King into some kind of expert in documentation creation. They helped educate a man who has had a positive influence on America greater than all the nobodies critisizing his referencing style all put together. 4.250.138.208 07:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not character assassination - all involved agree that King lifted whole sections from another paper. It is not character assassination to uphold standards. The article states that King "might" have believed it was OK, but that does not make it OK. The world is not filled only with angels & beasts. It gave me no pleasure to work on that article --JimWae 07:55, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

The effect is character assassination. Discrediting an important figure is a known propaganda technique. People remember things without remembering where they got them. King wrote as taught and rewarded (by grades). Redefining "standards" different than that applied by the teacher who gave and graded the "assignment" after the man is dead and can't defend himself is pathetic manipulation of public opinion by known and documented propaganda techniques. Even the chief of the FBI engaged in character assisination against King and you are going to argue no one took up the cause of battling the King legacy or that this isn't exactly the sort of smear campaign one would expect? Don't be naive. 4.250.168.91 07:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. - authorship issues

"Long Knives"

Hey, thanks for the corrections on "Knives", Typing "Premiers" and "provinces" over and over kind of messes your mind a bit...Habsfannova 20:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do it - any more info on what happened in kitchen & what elsewhere?--JimWae 21:08, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold (and his brother)

Noticed that you edited out the mention of Arnold's brother, who died in infancy. It's nothing I'm going to squabble over, of course; it is faily minor in the scheme of things. I would like to posit an argument for its inclusion, though, as it tells us about the period into which he was born: infant mortality was high and it was common to name a new child after its dead predecessor. I'm not going to revert it or put the information back in; just thought I'd offer my two cents on why I think it's an important detail. --Anonymoustom 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- all but one of his siblings died before adulthood, his mother was widowed & then married his father --JimWae 16:56, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

JFK Trivia

I removed the JFK trivia section a week or so ago as the article is currently undergoign peer review and the point was made that FAs never have trivia sections. I am hoping to guide the Kennedy article to FA status, and would be grateful if you want to help me improve the article to get that far, and am reverting the trivia section. If you have any further points to add on this, please start a discussion on the JFK talk page (the article is on my watchlist) and we'll talk further. Thanks. Harro5 05:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll let you work on it for a while without the trivia section. It's about the only place to put some things (like Huxley & Lewis) without going off-topic, in my opinion, though - and even Tecumseh's curse is of interest to many who do not believe in curses. I did a lot of work on several JFK articles, but have never tried to put anything up for FA status - I suspect I'd find having to avoid capricious criticisms too straight-jacketing. Good luck --JimWae 05:44, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Jesus

Jim. Catholicism does not preach a ‘works’ salvation. They hold that it is necessary to accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, to be justified. See catechism. The link you provided showed that this justification is available to all. I ask you to withdraw your revert. The Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration [6] [7] shows that there is little or no difference between these churches on this issue. --ClemMcGann 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And so I have changed it to "just life" as in the link, instead of good works. Can you show where the RCs teach ONLY those who accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, will be saved? The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved. Non-Christians, especially those who heard little or none at all of Jesus, could not be expected to consciously accept Christian grace! The works part remains as the qualification that faith is not sufficient. --JimWae 21:31, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
Jim. Yes, as you say, “The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved.” ,by grace. However your edit “Roman Catholics believe that good works are also necessary for salvation” is factually incorrect. Please re-read the catechism link--ClemMcGann 22:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's confine rest of discussion to Talk:Jesus, where others can follow it --JimWae 22:28, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

User:SNIyer1

I see this person is back to their old habits over at the JFK article. Enough is enough. I think it is time for an RFC on this user. Given teh user's habits of ignoring all rules of Wikipedia, never answering messages on talk pages, it should be a pretty simple matter to expose the person for what they are. Please join in supporting the RFC, once it is created. -Husnock 05:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is open. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SNIyer1 -Husnock 06:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Abraham Lincoln

You are right about the Hillary quote, but it was too good to pass up. --Noitall 04:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

RFC on DotSix

I have filed a request for comment on DotSix's conduct. It is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix. Since you are involved in this dispute, you may want to certify the RFC or add your own comments. Thanks. Rhobite 01:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Zeno's paradoxes

Hi. You have removed my submission asking whether my submission is disputing the proposed soulution. Since the Zeno's statement talks about overtaking, the solution is obviously inadequate. Reaching a goal and surpassing it are not the same at all, are they not? The solution makes Achilles reach the tortoise in infinite attempts already; so overtaking is out of question. Therefore my addition seemed necessary for me. Also i am newbie here at wiki and am somewhat amazed that removing a submission is not done by some kind of unanimous agreement between multiple people; but merely by one individual. If some people are regarded as authorities and decide how an article will look then forgive my ignorance for i am not sure about the moderation here. Thank you...

Kimal 14:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do not have time to respond fully. The first part of the paragraph is overly conclusive (POV) too. Hope to get back to you on this soon--JimWae 03:17, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

Source for Election of 1912

Hi there:

Right now, we have a person (User:Toya) who has been going through the various U.S. presidential election, yyyy articles and replacing their PV data with PV data from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is all fine — I have little reason to suspect that Leip's data isn't good — but I've been cleaning up after Toya, fixing formatting, citing his source, little housekeeping like that.

However, I'm now up to 1912, and the Leip PV values from the main results table don't agree with the totals in the state-by-state table that you entered. I'm somewhat curious as to where you got your data for that table — is it a better source than the Leip Atlas? I'm also curious as to whether you think I should use the Leip values for the state-by-state table, or use your source for the main results table.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

— DLJessup 14:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DL,
The source I used is the one in External Links: http://www.multied.com/elections/1912State.html
The first discrepancy I see is Colorado
--JimWae 15:31, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

If you don't mind, I think I'm going to go ahead and use the Leip values for the state-by-state table. Leip seems a bit more professional than MultiEducator: Leip cites references for his sources such as: "Arizona Secretary of State, General Election Returns November 5th, 1912 State of Arizona (Phoenix, 1912)" while MultiEducator manages to (mis)spell Woodrow Wilson's name with two l's on http://www.multied.com/elections/1912State.html.

— DLJessup 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are all the discrepancies--JimWae 03:02, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
Arizona 0 0 35 0 35
California 0 0 67 0 67
Colorado 320 554 0 52 926
Delaware 0 0 1 0 1
Iowa 3 0 0 0 3
Michigan 550 1,341 810 151 2,852
Montana -188 -253 -63 74 -430
New Jersey -349 -269 -231 0 -849
New Mexico 0 0 569 0 569
North Dakota 6 0 100 0 106
Ohio 0 0 0 -20 -20
Oklahoma 13 0 60 44 117
South Carolina 2 0 0 0 2
South Dakota 0 0 0 -2 -2
Texas 2,668 2,138 -1,555 859 4,110
Utah 3 0 87 24 114
Vermont 4 3 29 0 36
Total 3,032 3,514 -91 1,182 7,637

Thanks a lot — the discrepancy list really helped. I've finished making the changes to the 1912 election tables. Let me know if I screwed anything up.

— DLJessup 14:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

Dont stack vertical images next to each other please. -St|eve 23:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looked fine in IE6 browser & made better use of white space next to TOC. It certainly was much better than the present photo section in "Resposibility" which appears as 

  Responsibility

A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
          B-photo - C-photo
E-photo   B-photo
E-photo
E-photo
E-photo

      start of text      F-photo
    text text text text  F-photo
    text text text text  F-photo
    text text text text  F-photo

I have a laptop with 1600x1200 screen --JimWae 23:53, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

So I have to ask: is it a matter of your preference or was it a mess on your screen? --JimWae 01:02, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

I have put those photos in a vertical table on right side many times - only to be undone without explanation except for "looks better this way". Table could be either 1 or 2 photos wide.--JimWae 01:09, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Sayville

You seem to be on the same page with me in what's starting to develop into an edit war concerning several facts about Sayville. The first is Marlon Brando's time there during the 1940s. The second is how the town got its name. I'm not very proficient about Wiki editing -- recently created a username and am sort of learning as I go along -- but I do know what's fact and what's not, especially where the name is concerned (see the Sayville talk page for the "Final Word on Name" facts).

The problem is that there is someone out there on the web who, a couple of years ago, started (this sensationalistic site) and is on some sort of mission to flood any online reference related to Sayville with what are a lot of half-truths. I'm sure you've seen it and the logical leaps this person takes are flat-out staggering. I could go into a long story about how I came to know about this because it involves me and several of my friends personally, but I don't want to take up too much room. Anyway, this person keeps using anonymous numbered IP addresses to post changes, so it's not like he can be disciplined in any way. And I'm pretty sure it's the same person that's making all these changes.

So, I'm just asking you for any advice, because while I would like to see the facts presented as they should be, I don't want to get involved in a juvenile edit war, and I know you're as involved in keeping the page up to date as I am.

Thanks for listening. Tpanarese 03:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

The Gospels do say that the crowd was whipped up by the Pharisees. Should this be noted in the lead section? I don't want to add anything that might cause Jew hating, because I think an emphasis on this bit is entirely missing the point of Jesus death on the cross. Plus it's Not Very Nice to Jews. However... the Bible does say what I just mentioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimWae&oldid=20175781"