User talk:Jim62sch

NOTHING

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

US KIA needed to "accomplish the mission": 139

US KIA since May 1, 2003: 3,586

<font|strong> 3,725 KIA 25,549 WIA<font|strong> 56,058 Total Casualties (KIA, WIA, Other) [1] <font|strong>UK KIA: 168[2]; Other KIA: 129; Iraqi dead in the tens of thousands

User:Jim62sch/archive1 User:Jim62sch/archive2 User:Jim62sch/archive3

User:Jim62sch/archive4 User:Jim62sch/archive5 User:Jim62sch/archive6

User:Jim62sch/archive7

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Handy hint: to keep discussions in one place, if you leave a talk message I'll answer it here, though I may put a note on your page if getting your attention seems important. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.

This user has a GYFROOMFPOV

Galicia

Ola, grazas pola mensaxe, non sei se entendín ben, na páxina de Stoni eu só mencionei o artigo sobre Abadín, Lugo, do que fixen unha versión moi simple a partir do artigo galego gl:Abadín, o meu inglés non me permite facer unha tradución completa, se ti queres facer unha tradución do artigo ou de calquera outro por min encantado. Aínda que a Wikipedia en galego ten relativamente poucos artigos e queda moito por facer, pouco a pouco penso que imos mellorando na súa calidade, claro que iso o teñen que dicir o que nos visitan, saúdos dende Galicia.--Rocastelo 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Jim! Please do not ever, for any reason, feel you need to take off your shoes for me. Unless you use odor-eaters, I am concerned what the consequences might be. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

...And never apologize for fixing my grammar, typing or spelling! I appreciate the assist! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar: thanks

Hello, and thanks for the beautiful barnstar, just the thing for my user page William M. Connolley 12:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I've been giving this a fair amount of thought. Because of your efforts on wizard, I wanted to see if I could find an award for you. You came in, and were friendly, encyclopedic, and giving of yourself as a resource. No matter what the final outcome is (if there ever is one), I feel that due to all of these actions, and more, that you deserve a barnstar. I've read your home page and talk page, and while I find that we disagree on several points (even on something as the serial comma), that has nothing to do with how deserving you are of this award. (And in truth, after reading your talk page, I am further convinced...)

By the way, your actions that led me to look to find out how Barnstars "worked", has led me to award another deserving person : )

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. Jc37 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What ho

It was great to meet you in Philly, sorry it was so short. I spent most of the week chasing my own tail. I'm back in the UK with jetlag now. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox version

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar - Awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. - Jc37 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution award

		The Evolution Award
		The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Jim62sch for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Orrabest, dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? ..dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

a request, not a comment -- also in regular edit location

Another Latin request

I found this as a contemporaneous caption on a painting of Elizabeth I, used for her article, and would like a translation from Latin please,

Diva Elizabetha, virgo invictissima, semper augusta, plus quam Caesarea Angliae, Francia, et Hiberna potentisima Imperatrix, Fidei Christianae Fortissima Propugnatrix, Literarum omnium scientissima fautrix, Immensi Oceani Faelicissima triumphatrix, Collegi Iesu Oxon. Fundatrix.

My Latin skills have been rusting for several decades, and although I get the gist, I'd like to see a good translation. Do not know whether this an appropriate avenue to make such a request, as I failed to find directions on the page I accessed regarding translations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83d40m (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Response left on user's page. •Jim62sch• 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Do you want a credit for the translation if I insert it into the article? 83d40m 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's up to you -- whichever works best for the article is fine by me. •Jim62sch• 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Adiu!

Ai vist dins ta pagina personala que parlas occitan! Sul projècte occitan, avèm besonh d'ajuda! Sabi pas s'èras al corrent de l'existéncia de la "Wikipèdia". Esites pas a nos rendre visita, ès benvengut!
A lèu! Wikipèdia Cedric31 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmercé, Cedric. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design"

Hi Jim, looking over your previous posts it seems like your preference for bluntness is closest to my own, so I'd like to talk to you directly. I came across the ID page when I was looking for a non-Christian, more scientific variant. It's clear to me that that page is a hopeless mess of argument and (to be blunt) bullshit, but I'd still like to get something out of it. I want there to be a page, somewhere, under some name (clearly not "Intelligent design") that deals with the idea of a designed, artificial universe and/or designed or engineered humanity. It's not "teleological argument" because not all of those ideas are religious in nature. I'll be happy to work on such a page, and to do my best to make sure it can't be "hijacked" by the ID people to serve as some sort of evidence that their "official position" is non-theistic (the last thing I want is to get the religious fighting making it impossible to research this other topic too). I think you've been dealing with this type of endless arguing a lot longer than I ever would, so I'm interested in hearing your opinion on how I should proceed, and how best to avoid the whole ID flamewar. Thanks! --Sapphic 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit

Your bluntness is refreshing considering the level of duplicitous doublespeak used by certain editors. I congratulate you. If I only had the balls to say what you do, I'd be happier on here!!! Orangemarlin 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gnixon had bitched that FM had reverted his digression without comment, that doing so wasn't fair, that he (nixon) had taken a very long time to write the digression, that he was insulted, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam (and I really do mean nausea) -- so, I only thought it fair to provide a reason for the rv lest Mr Nixon thought I was being unfair towards him  ;) Ugh, sometimes Wiki can be more drama and trouble than than a soap opera and we can't even win an Emmy for our efforts. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch out, that editor will file some Rf something because you've insulted him. I gave up editing articles where he was located, because he whines if you revert any of his POV pushing edits. I decided it isn't worth the effort. I'm having fun with some nice intellectual pursuits on here. Orangemarlin 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He's free too do so, of course, I don't mind. Of course, the process can be used the other way too: he's a rather tendentious, POV-pushing editor who frequently wreaks havoc on the pages he edits, including causing other editors to avoid articles he is actively editing due to the nature of his edits, particularly on the talk pages. Wouldn't surprise me if a few folks aren't already considering an RfC on his behaviour. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're stalking. Diff I was accused of the same. [3] I just plain gave up on it. There comes a point when someone's POV pushing needs to pushed back by someone else, because I just don't have the time or energy to be nice about the push back. You should check out some of his POV edits. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me. If you think I'm right, I could use some help. Orangemarlin 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he apologised...sort of. POV edits on Physics or on ID (I know he's done some stuff there) or elsewhere? I don't care about his staking charges -- if an editor is running around making changes with a specific POV that he's pushing in violation of policy, fixing those edits is not stalking. See [4] Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

-- "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this an appeasement too far? Is this chappie to be the patron saint of faith based npov? Time for coffee and kip. .. dave souza, talk 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, reminds me of Chamberlain after Munich. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the Fringe 1961:

Oi'll never forget that day that war was declared

Oi was out in the gaarden at the time, planting out some chrysants

It was a grand year for chrysants 1939, oi had some lovely blooms

My wife came out to me in the gaarden and told me the Prime Minister's announcement of the outbreak of war

Never mind, my dear, oi said to 'er. You put on the kettle, we'll have a nice cup of tea

<avoids mentioning the appeaser Chamberlain actually declared war on the Nazis, unlike some who waited till Hitler declared war on them. Ahem. Just trivia with no relevance to present company> Ta for your assistance, may the Good NPOV prevail........ 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did ye cross out the delaration info? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an inadequate html attempt to replicate typical British-style muttering brought on by the reminder of all those black-and-white war films. Gad, the horrors of war films. Chamberlain is much maligned, mostly deservedly. Meanwhile, the battle of ID continues, without my participation for a bit. What make you of recent goings on? .. dave souza, talk 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the question wasn't meant for me, but let me put in my opinion on the ID discussions. It appears that there are 2-3 POV pushers who seem to be exceedingly patient in the matter. One of the pushers complains that he's a "pot smoking liberal" but doesn't agree with the lack of NPOV on the ID article. As a matter of fact, very few "liberals" brag about their pot smoking. I don't inhale whenever I do. Another of the POV-pushers uses a technique of throwing in dozens of edits. Most of them look very legitimate but two or three are in fact very POV (anti-Evolution, in this case). Another one just keeps pushing the anti-Evolution POV over and over. Guettarda has indicated that there might be some interesting activities afloat to push a pro-religion agenda, and they are very careful as to how they do it. These users appear to be doing so. Another issue is that the several editors who have stood up to the POV-pushers aren't around. I've given up, because frankly, it's not worth responding to every bogus argument they make. Then if you do accuse them of their POV pushing, they file an WP:ANI, which takes more time. I'm frustrated by what's happening. ID is nothing more than a subtle religious argument for creationism. Why is there such discussions going on? I like Jim's responses--he's blunt, and could care less about what they creationists say about him. This whole thing is depressing. Orangemarlin 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> It's a bit more complex, as Morphh raised a genuine point which was backed up by a reading of Kitzmiller, leading to the current use of version 2. Despite the ghastly heading of "Just the facts, ma'm" which had me looking to see if it was a rasping person, Tomandlu is genuine and ok, imo. As I write, a useful suggestion is being put forward and agreed by Gnixon, who appears to be fair and against pro-ID pov, judging by recent actions. Looks promising, but I'm thinking about it before commenting... dave souza, talk 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

Everytime I see an update to the death toll in Iraq, I get ill. I remember when I was young, and I watched Walter Cronkite report the news from Vietnam, stating the US death toll, I got ill. Then one night, a Marine Officer showed up at our front door to tell my father, who was a US Army Colonel that his brother was killed there. Even though it was 40 years ago, I remember it like it was yesterday. I can only imagine that story being repeated nearly every day. It's sad. Orangemarlin 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's very sad, and such a waste of good men and women. I remember only bits and piece of Vietnam on the nightly news (I was only 10 when it ended), but what I remember has stayed with me all these years. Like Vietnam, Iraq is a war of volition not necessity and that makes me all the angrier as people are dying to fulfill the whims of a wannabe Caesar. With Prince Harry so willing to go to Iraq I often wonder why Jenna and Barbara haven't signed up to defend their country, OK, someone else's country, no their father's delusions of grandeur.

Tomorrow marks the four year anniversary of Dubya's trumphant flight onto a carrier, proudly proclaiming that the mission was accomplished. How hollow those words are now. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that interesting. Prince Harry, whose life is more privileged than anyone I know, is willing to risk his life in Iraq. Of course, the Royal Family has more passion for military service and service to their nation than any politician in this country. Oh yeah, Bush avoided the draft and lied about it (as opposed to Clinton avoiding the draft and being upfront about it). No Republican will send their kids to war, because stockbrokers and country clubs only send other people's kids to war. Meh. Orangemarlin 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old line from Jefferson Airplane's Rejoyce, "War's good business, so give your sons; and I'd rather have my country die for me." Meh is right. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

double entendre?

LOL, was that an intentional double entendre, or just my warped imagination? ImprobabilityDrive 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I know its not my imagination. ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC against this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed [:#[5]] as it is by SheffieldSteel.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rem [:#[6]] not really edit warring &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Hi Jim. When you make reversions like this one to good faith edits, could you try to explain your reasons in the edit summary? I was trying to make the lead of Physics a little less wordy so it would read better, but if I cut something you think is important, maybe we can find a compromise. I don't want to let our past disagreements over the creation-evolution articles spill over to unrelated areas. Gnixon 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that I had explained, but I see that I didn't. I know your edits were in good faith, and I did try to incorporate some of them into the change. I felt that the shift from Physics to Physicists was a bit abrupt. Also, I didn't see a reason to take physike out of the lead as it adds a sense of history.

BTW, I agree with you regarding the lead picture: surely we can do much better than that. A picture of orbitals is just a bit esoteric for a lead.

Don't worry about the creation-evolution stuff, each article is a different one and we are free to disagree on some things and agree on others. Peace. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you did a good job rephrasing in a way that avoids switching to "physicists." What's the significance of "physike"? It seems a little arcane to me for the lead, but maybe I'm unfamiliar with the history. If nothing else, it's a little awkward that it could be read as saying that people still use "physike." I'd still like to work on rephrasing things to be as concise as possible. Gnixon 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have, in the past, assumed a lot of good faith with Gnixon, but there are times when he appears to exhibit a lot of ownership of articles. Do what you think is right when you need. Orangemarlin 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence for physike as it was used in the past. Maybe it's better now, maybe not. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it at least explains the point better to me, but now it's so long that it's distracting. I never liked parenthetical remarks---too easy to succumb to the temptation to bloat. It's a delicate issue to balance information with readability in the lead. Maybe we should fish for ideas on Talk:Physics. My other recommendation for the lead would be to take an active voice in the 2nd sentence (instead of "are studied", "are analyzed") and try to trim down the wording a little. Maybe I'll take another shot at it tomorrow, and hopefully I'll dig up some more lead image candidates, too. Gnixon 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit long, I think I'll just take it out. I'm not fond of parenthetical statements either, although at times they are necessary, I'm just not too sure that this is one of those times.

The active vs. passive argument has always irritated me: all IE languages descended from forms that had not just the active and passive, but also a middle voice that still exists in the form of the reflexive. The general preference for active voice is driven by the difficulty many people have in understanding the passive, and, of late, a belief spawned by the usage of passive by politicians that passive is somehow less accurate. Both to me are fallacious arguments as one can easily learn the passive and the active is just as prone to misstatement of fact as is the passive.

Case in point: the IRS recently changed "A refund check will be sent to you" to "We will send you a refund check". The problem? The IRS does not send the checks, a separate agency, the Financial Management Service sends the checks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha. The IRS is retarded. The argument I've always heard for the active voice is simply that it reads better, presumably because it stays concise by saving on prepositional phrases and the like: "John threw the ball" instead of "The ball was thrown by John." My last writing class was centuries ago, but for whatever reason, the things I write seem to get better when I go back and revise to take the active voice---particularly for persuasive writing, but for other forms as well. Anyway, no big deal; just a matter of taste, I suppose. Gnixon 21:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Active or passive, shouldn't it be something like "A refund check may be sent to you"? :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's actually will: it's on a notice indicating that the refund amount may be more or less than anticipated.

Active is quite appropriate in conversational English. However, in written English it allows one to place the stress on particular subjects or objects, and thus allows for much more creativity. But, as you say, chacun a son goût.  ;)

Those numbers...

Well, it looks possible that one of the casualties could be the United Kingdom. This process has resulted in this, and if the guy looking like Charles Addams' grinning man has his way, the UK ends in three years. Not entirely probable, but subject to coalition, that's them with hands on the levers of government. So it goes, .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, could be. I've noted for a while that I envision a not-so-distant future when Scotland pulls out of the UK, and Catalonia leaves Spain. Interestingly, while the Italians would love to ditch Sicily, there's no move to separate the two. On the other hand, the Corsicans might (I hope) be able to get away from the French. They have absolutely nothing in common and their languages are similar only in that both are derived from Latin (see here and here). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more complex, in that support for "independence" is consistently around 30% here, and the SNP campaigned on offering a change in government, with separation put off to a separate referendum in around three years time. A lot of their support appears to have accepted their offer of a protest vote and some attractive policies (free care for the elderly, more subsidy for students) with the assurance that they can then vote against a split in the referendum, but of course the SNP openly hope to build their reputation and make independence seem more attractive. Interesting times. By the way, I nicked the heading from someone else, forgotten who. .. dave souza, talk 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess only time will tell what happens as far as full autonomy goes.

So, I guess I double-nicked then, eh? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. By the way, perhaps I should mention that the attractive policies are to be funded by demanding a cut of the taxes from North Sea oil. Never mind that currently funding comes from a formula giving Scotland a percentage of the UK budged that's widely thought to be pretty generous. So cynics expect such a demand to be turned down, and the SNP to then start wailing about how it's the UK's fault for withholding "oor money"! Will be interesting to see if this dire prediction plays out. Meanwhile, the main fuss is about a huge proportion of votes getting discarded as spoilt, about 10%, partly due to the design of the forms and partly failures in a new computer operated vote counting system. Which hanging chads does this remind everyone of? :( ... dave souza, talk 20:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see it's not just we Americans who can't manage to get an election straight. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Durn tootin', looks embarrassed. Only 48 votes in a constituency just to the south of us swung it, if I heard correctly, but it looks like a very uncomfortably narrow majority, dependent on an independent nationalist and two greens as well as the anti-independence liberals all working together. Or a minority government. Wait and see. On other issues, so the editor who was puzzling me a bit was probably the vacuous one – alles klar. Apologies for any errors in that, I bow to your linguistic ability and feel sure you were being tactful about herr owlsmirror and knew all about the probable original meaning. ;) .. .dave souza, talk 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually restrained enough not to call him arsehole -- it would just have been too easy. We'll see what new incarnation he dreams up, but his editing will give him away again. Fools are like that, especially Jolly Jokers like Herr Owlsmirror. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tet offensive?

Hope you don't find this offensive, but since you've been upsetting us all with those numbers for so long, I thought you'd be interested in the Grauniad's front page today: the top half is the picture shown (much smaller) here, and the big headline underneath it is about this story whichs most takes up most of the other half of the page, and both stories continue to pages 2 and 3 with a different main picture and graphics about the recent redeployments and casualties, and Bradley statistics: 22.7 tonnes, 45 mph, 6.65m long, $3.166m – translations into U.S. units available on request, but that's the mix of units we Brits seem to understand. Mostly. ... dave souza, talk 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just like Tet, only worse. However, if we try to follow-up with a Linebacker II type plan against Iran, I think we'll be in deep shit. See Iran is not Iraq

As for this: "But if Iran succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, he said." That risk existed from the time the invasion started. Of the 120K troops that were supposed to take part in the invasion, only 70K were actually available. The US bypassed towns and villages, failing to at least cut them off, thus allowing the insurgent movement to coalesce in those areas. The US proudly proclaimed that they had found thousands of Iraqi Army uniforms strewn across the desert, but conspicuously missing were the weapons. A major ammo dump was cleaned out because the US was too busy basking in the glory of "victory" to bother to make the ammo dump a primary concern. The increasing autonomy of the Kurds is seen as a threat by both Iran and Turkey. I could go on, but you get the point.

I understand the units of measurements, but admittedly the mixing of imperial and metric is a bit weird. Math problem for youngsters: if the Bradley is 6.65m long and travels at 45mph, how many times its length will it travel in one hour.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maths problem for me today: having been loaned a "courtesy car" by the garage doing my car's annual service, petrol tank (almost) empty, return as found, at a guess should do about 30 mpg (imperial, not U.S. gallons) – how many litres of petrol do I buy?

There was a weird hiatus after "mission accomplished", when there was a desperate need to pay the Iraqi army to be a force for preventing chaos, or lose their pay if they didn't behave. Being cynical I'd expected BushCo to bail out and leave the civil war to sort itself out, but they were too entranced be the profits they foresaw for Haliburton etc. to even seize the chance offered by the French to declare victory and hand the problem to the UN. so it goes. They keep coming out with the language of self delusion, so like ID....

Speaking of capitalism, have just put together an article about the latest local ferry here – the last shipyard in the area is hanging by a thread without any orders, and the (private) owner keeps wanting the government to put work his way without the need to compete for it – but he wanted the free market when it suited him..... dave souza, talk 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick decisions can generally equate about 4-and-a-half litres per gallon, and if you're in a real hurry "just under five litres makes a gallon" will do without running out of gas for bad arithmetic. Looked at the other way around, a litre will get you about 7 miles. But did I neglect to mention wildly exaggerated MPG ratings? Maybe better make it 6 miles a litre, and get there'nback safely too, OK? But then you're counting kilometres there, aren't you?... ... nevermind ;-) ... Kenosis 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Might explain why so many Brits and Scots run out of gas.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how many miles you drive it, no?

The Bushites are greedy little fools who couldn't figure out that a paper sack falls apart when it's soaking wet even if they were shown 200 videos of the fact.

The owner must be a Tory. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, yup, yup. :-/ . . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realize that the VC got their asses handed to them during the Tet Offensive, no? - Crockspot 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

From a military standpoint, yes, from a propaganda standpoint, they kicked ass. Unfortunately, the US and UK (and whatever countries have 5 or 6 guys there at present) do not have enough troops in-country to have the same level of military success this time, and we've already lost the propaganda war. Hell, we lost that within the first year of the "war". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

mythological aspects of Jesus Christ

It would appear your afd of that article is based on a simple misunderstanding on your part. I suggest you read the articles in question and then withdraw the afd. Even if I am mistaken and you are aware of the topic discussed and still think it is invalid for whatever reason, what you want is a {{merge}}, not deletion. Afd is for inherently invalid topics. Afd isn't for merging or splitting discussions, you can do that on talkpages. I'd be pleased to hear a reasonable exposition of your point of view, but so far I honestly cannot discover rhyme or reason in what you are trying to tell us. dab (𒁳) 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll not be withdrawing anything. If you want to suggest merge, do so on the afd vote.

What, praytell, is your reasoning for the split? Where was you consensus for making the split? How is it not a fork? What purpose was served by the split? Bottom line is, no matter what the reason, it is clearly a POV fork that can't be defended. And mo, afd is not for inherently invalid topics (whatever that means), it is also how one deals with POV forks. Look it up for yourself, the link is there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your determination Jim. I couldn't believe how much had changed so fast and am stunned that people are defending a major change made by a love-in of a couple of editors with virtually no discussion. Sophia 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sophia. I've yet to see a rational reason for the split, bolden's arguments are utter nonsense. "[A] love-in of a couple of editors with virtually no discussion"...I might've said, were I allowed to do so without violating WP:NPA, "without a clue", but I'll be nice and not say that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job NPA doesn't cover what we think huh? Sophia 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You learn a few things in debating.  ;) Besides, when I first got here I thought NPA stood for the "National Pediculosis Association", although I couldn't figure out why everyone was so occupied with lice infestation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Lovely work on God - the article is improving enormously. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't know you were such an expert Jim. I know who to run to for help on all of these religion articles.  :) Orangemarlin 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Latin

I wish I could read it. Sophia 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written what I have written, but you have not read what I have written. (Technically, I should have done "scripsi quod scripsi", but I didn't want to mess up the biblical reference.)  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that one - I may use it and pretend I know latin! Sophia 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You might like this one too (I leave it as an edit summary when I get frustrated with Fundies trying to do things like put dinosaurs on Noah's Ark): "In principio creavit homo dei et ex eo tempore poenas dederat" In the beginning, man created the gods and he's been paying for it ever since.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Or my favorite, Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur - "Anything said in Latin sounds profound". I find it useful in dealing with Jim. (:-P) OTOH, Non gradus anus rodentum may be more to your liking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No step ass rat? What? If you meant what I think you did, it's not translatable. Nil morari is the closest you can get. Interesting tidbit: in Latin, the root of "profound" (found most often in the phrase de profundis), is the exact opposite of "altum" in the quote. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nil carborundum illegitemii! Which reminds me, Johnson is regarded as the father of ID, but it was evidently conceived in 1987 before he'd even heard of it, which casts some doubt on the legitimacy of the offspring.... dave souza, talk 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad sign when illegitemi reminds one of Johnson, but it's true.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking the slow approach at the hypothemyth page - it's not worth getting frustrated about. Also Str is OK with me - we have our moments but with enough time and attempts to work out what each other mean, we should end up with a stable title. Ta for the latin - they will come in useful when I want to look educated! Sophia 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure Str out -- he makes some good edits and some really bad ones. Sometimes his logic is sound, other times it's seriously flawed. And I really wish he'd leave the language stuff alone -- he has no clue what he's on about. Now, I have to go try to stabilise that section. Grrrr. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's flawed like all of us. He made a point over at one article or another, where he was very logical. However, I still disagreed with him. Orangemarlin 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The joys of being human.  :)

In any case, on the God article he's busy claiming that Allah is not the Muslim name for God, while claiming "nameship" for a variety of other "words". I really wish that people who know nothing of linguistics would leave linguistic/etymological issues alone. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science

Mental gymnastics like that would make Big Brother proud. Seriously, when even other creationists think you're cracked, it's probably a good time to stop and reconsider. ornis 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know... you ever see that episode of blackadder? "... heaven is full of people who like doing heavenly things, like self flagellation, adoring god, potting flowers or resisting temptations of the flesh..." I dunno if the rapture's all it's cracked up to be.ornis 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the first season, the one where he becomes the archbishop of canterbury. You should check out Black Books if you ever get the opportunity. AbFab is good, but I'm not such a fan of Are you being served. I'd also say steer clear of Little Britain, it's funny once, but after that you realise that they only have about ten sketches they repeat ad nauseam.ornis 19:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ornis 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your claims of vandalism on the Creation Science page, Wikipedia policy specifically states that neither Bold Edits nor Stubbornness can be considered as vandalism. The changes made do not fall under any category of what constitutes vandalism.

F00 13:51, 7 Jul7 2007 (UTC)

If you read it as you wish to read it. POV edits do not count as being bold (a concept that does not, contrary to some viewpoints, equate to being reckless). Constantly trying to force them into the article against consensus is roughly equal to vandalism. Keep in mind the WP has myriad policies that are interrelated. I would suggest that you look a bit more closely at WP:V, WP:VAND, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR just to name a few. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem..

Dunno if news of these wee incidents reaches you, but a couple of bampots in a large Jeep Cherokee carried out an almost ridiculously inept suicide bombing attempt at Glasgow airport about 2pm UTC yesterday, trying to drive it into the main entrance of the terminal building and throw petrol bombs/molotov cocktails as well as blowing up the jeep, but getting stuck in the entrance and initially only setting the vehicle and themselves on fire then flailing about, punching the people and police who tried to rescue them from what at first seemed possibly an accident. However, although they were arrested, the jeep burned enough to cause significant damage to the building, and the immediate effect was to halt all airport activity. And this the Greenock Fair! (traditional local holiday week, so a lot of locals would be there hoping for a flight to the sun and getting stuck at the airport for a day) Anyway, the news this morning is that police are carrying out a detailed forensic search of a house in Houston, apparently linked to these bampots. Hence the silly title. As is happens, Houston is a wee old village near Paisley, about half way between here (Gourock) and Glasgow and not very far from the airport. I understand there's some newer settlement of the same name somewhere over your way. .. dave souza, talk 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I heard about that...MSNBC and the NYT have had pretty good coverage of it. The police just arrested a 5th suspect, although it's a bit unclear if it was for the incident at Glascow, or the car incident in London the other day. Some scary stuff.

Our Houston is actually a very large city (4th largest in the US) with a population of 2.1 millions. I've never been, nor do I plan on going. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Houston, Renfrewshire.

Yes, this one's actually quite pleasant and surprisingly old, though I've not spent much time there. Several houses in one of the modern developments around the village are being searched, the airport's reopened and a fifth suspect's been arrested near Liverpool, about half way between this and the London incidents. It's being treated as one incident spread over about 400 miles, so pretty local by your standards ;) They've been so ineffective it's seemed to me almost a comedy rather than a tragedy, these guys in the jeep imagining movie style bursting into the building with huge explosions and instead getting stuck in the door. One of the airport staff interviewed saw the fight, and at first thought it was taxi drivers – which leaves you wondering about those taxi drivers! However, very close to possibly massive death and injury both here and in London, and altogether a tedious nuisance for travellers and those caught up in the incidents. Anyway, couldn't resist the pun :) . . dave souza, talk 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's good they were so incompetent, but it's troubling that they got so close to success. Of course, given the Isles' proximity to the mideast, you guys seem to be much more of a target than the US, although I have little doubt that something will happen here eventually. Iraq certainly isn't helping the situation, either. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Our proximity to Ireland has meant that we're rather accustomed to occasional terrorist outrages, proximity to the mideast has little to do with it though our history there doesn't help. The recent problems relate to immigration here from the Commonwealth so there are massive family ties and much travelling to Pakistan, where there are training camps on the Afghan frontier. Oddly enough our Scottish Nationalist administration has been making statements emphasising that the two were not born or brought up in Scotland, leaving open the possibility that they might come from England. The separatist mentality. .. dave souza, talk 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that it's easier for people from the mideast to cross through Europe and get to the UK, than it is for them to cross the ocean. The UK may also have a higher per capita population than does the US of people from the mideast.

And yes, the UK's history in the mideast is not a plus. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Get what you mean, but the current impression is that these nuts got here on a flight from Pakistan. .. dave souza, talk 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. I guess we're stuck with terrorism for a while, then. Someday, mankind might move past adolescence (before we wander into obsolescence). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. And I appreciate that you weren't trying to insult FOo – if you had been trying, he'd have known about it! Anyway, bedtime in this time zone, do please have a look over my efforts at Creationism..... dave souza, talk 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have this intense hatred of writing for the LCD. Besides, that's what we have the "simple English" wiki for. Let mo go check Creationism -- I noticed the one portion you added yesterday and it looked fine. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. The multiple links to references hadn't got their closing / in a couple of cases, so a bit was missing. Have tidied it up, clarified some points and subdivided the section which was looking rather long. It took a while to pull together as good cites were needed for the early history – YECs have been putting in their slant that all but a few of the early Christians were literalists. Several sources point to interpretations being primarily allegorical, though after the Gnostic heresy theologians countered that purely allegorical view with emphasis that it was literal in some ways as well. Odd how these Christians keep falling out with each other, and reinventing history to suit. By the way, there's apparently a small "creation museum" in the south of England, so we're not immune. .... dave souza, talk 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive horrors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

your comments on my talk page.

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

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

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

You know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say your first sentence sums it up nicely. Of course, what's even worse is when the ump follows the player back to his dugout to see if he's still griping -- that was a favourite tactic of Joe West. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles

Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

McD'oh!

Even Homer has a Larbert accent? Eh no? . . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And I used it all this time with out realising its origin. D'oh! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We're just so obsessed with your U.S. culture, such as your horror shows – guess you'll know it all, but it's pretty scary from here :( ... dave souza, talk 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's more scary from here. That smug, egotistical, self-righteous, pompous, dastardly miscreant reminds me of Montgomery Burns. Oh, he's also a dishonest, devious deviant. And those are just his good points. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It warms my heart to see a Joe Isuzu analogy. Although it also makes me feel old. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rough draft finished

I have finished my draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We're paving ahead and making good improvements over there. I thought you might want to contribute some more to it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the criticism sections. You stated that it has been "eviscerated"? What do you mean by this? I cut down on the non-relevant parts of the criticism and expanded on the other parts. If there's anything else you think should be added or changed please just let me know so that we can discuss it and make the changes. If you see any problems in the Criticism section then just point them out so that I can fix them. The same goes with the rest of the article, just point out problems and I'll fix them as soon as I can after discussing them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, anyone who makes comments and observations such as this has very little situational awareness and no real grasp of what is required to write an encyclopedia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I make a mistake in observation you won't participate or contribute to the rewrite draft? Hmmm. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That was not a mistake in observation, it was a fundamental flaw in your analytical processes. It certainly confirmed my decision to change from neutral to oppose on your RFA: and admin who only looks at the superficial is quite dangerous.

Bottom line is that your rewrite does not seem likely to go anywhere as the rewrite itself needs a complete rewrite. Whether or not you are aware of this I do not know, but you are giving one of the biggest homeopathy POV pushers a platform to push his POV. I've also noted undue weight problems; you don't appear to have grasped that issue either. Finally, you need to fix the etymology section of the lead as I mentioned on the talk page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1. It was a mistake in observation, as I said.

2.The rewrite is much better than the current article. I'm giving all of the contributors a chance to make proposed edits to improve the article. If you don't want to participate then that's your prerogative. If you do want to participate then make suggestions on the talk page of the draft so that I can make the corrections and cross them out once completed.

3. There's nothing wrong with giving people of different opinions platforms. Peter Morrell has contributed greatly to the draft, 90% of his contributions were very constructive and NPOV, the other 10% he dropped upon my pointing out how they were POV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose our perspectives on reality differ signifcantly. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hate to have to point out the obvious to you, but giving anyone a "platform" is not the point of wikipedia. You really don't seem to grasp undue weight, homeopathy is to medicine what intelligent design is biology, an undoubtably popular delusion, that flies in the face of over a hundred years of scientific discovery. ornis (t) 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, By giving people platforms on the talk pages of articles, this is a good way to engage and discuss improving the article. If we don't give someone a chance to express their opinions on articles then what's the point of it all to begin with? Secondly, I understand "undue weight" very clearly. Undue weight means specifically giving more weight in an article to a subject than exists in the context of that subject. In the Homeopathy article undue weight would mean giving more weight to the idea that homeopathy is medically effective than to the idea it isn't. Giving more weight to the supporters rather than the critics. This isn't how the draft is formated. The draft dedicates less than 2 paragraphs to discussing the successful studies concerning homeopathy (while in the same paragraphs pointing out their flaws) and dedicates several paragraphs to the criticism. The draft definitely doesn't violate undue weight policies. Moreover, It might be you who is confused about what undue weight means. Undue weight does not mean giving more space in an article to criticism of a subject than to explaining the basics of the subject itself. That is to say, undue weight does not mean discussing the opposition and criticism of homeopathy more than discussing homeopathy itself. All it means is giving more weight to the proposition that it is effective than to the proposition it isn't, which the draft obviously doesn't do. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: that draft will not replace the current article. Period.

Furthermore, I don't think you get it. Which part of homeopathy is psuedoscience, thus it is to be treated as such. Why do you fail to comprehend? On the positive side, you withdrew your RFA. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Now let me be blunt. The decision isn't just yours to make. Numerous other editors have contributed their time to working on that draft and you don't own the Homeopathy article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this has gone far enough, you've really worn out your good faith, you know nothing about the subject, you have no understanding of policy, and you're ego has clearly gotten the better of you reason. All I can say is thank Shiva you don't have admin tools. ornis (t) 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have contributed a lot of time to the draft and currently it's far better than the live article. If you oppose the draft then you're going to need to provide very detailed reasoning as to why so that your criticism can be addressed and relevant changes made. Please try to refrain from making accusations against me or attacking my intelligence. If you say I don't know something about homeopathy then please be specific and provide details so that I can improve my knowledge if I am indeed lacking it concerning something. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of autodidacticism? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. I've spent the last few weeks learning all about homeopathy. If the draft has factual errors it would be a great help if you could point them out so that I can fix them. That's what teamwork is about. I've read the draft over several times and tried fixing all of the factual errors that I found, however if I missed any a fresh set of eyes would benefit greatly. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You might find this of interest Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions (1842) -- 165 years ago homeopathy was known to be pseudoscientific clap-trap. The basic problem is that you refuse to treat it as such, and in your quest for pseudo-neutrality you have given homeopathy far more creedence than it deserves. [7], [8]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read that already. It's by Oliver Wendell Holmes and It's actually mentioned in the draft. You seem to be misunderstanding a very important point. It's not how I personally am or am not treating homeopathy. I am trying to write the article neutrally while still following WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I am having doubts that you have even actually read the rough draft. The rough draft dedicates at most a few sentences to the supposed positive scientific studies in homeopathy and SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS to the criticism and controversy. WP:WEIGHT doesn't even say that articles on "Obvious pseudoscience" should dedicate most of its space to refuting the topic. The main idea of wikipedia is to EXPLAIN topics, even pseudoscientific topics, not to simply refute them without even explaining what they are or their histories. Homeopathy has a long history and a complex philosophy which MUST be elaborated on in the article. Explaining what homeopathy is and how it started isn't less important than explaining criticism of it. WP:WEIGHT simply means that an article should not give more credence to a subject than criticism of it if that doesn't reflect the mainstream scientific community. In the case of Homeopathy, The draft gives basically NO CREDENCE to the subject and Several Articles of criticism. You're obviously confusing "explanation" with "Credence" and I believe you should definitely read the rough-draft through to see that it clearly coincides with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I don't confuse or more properly in this case, conflate anything; I am quite capable in such disciplines as reading, comprehension, analysis, separating the chaff from the wheat, recognising bullshit, etc. In fact, I get paid quite well for doing just that.

In any case, no duh that a topic needs to be explained before one can critique its value, thank you for mentioning rule number one of writing a good analysis. By the way, do not ever write anything to me in caps again. Do we understand each other, young man? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We should explain a topic before any critique of its value can be brought forward, you agree with this. Previously you were saying that the draft violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, so please explain. What % of the article should be dedicated to the topic of the article and what % should be dedicated to criticism of the topic? Are you saying that if a topic has a substantial amount of controversy that more % should be dedicated to criticism than to basic explanation of the topic, even when the basic explanation says nothing about the validity of said topic? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you repeating my words? We already established agreement on the venerable principle regarding the proper presentation of explication and critique.

Undue Weight will be explained to you in due time when the article has had all of its grammatic and syntactical errors corrected. Here's a hint though: Water memory was conspicuously absent from your rewrite. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand undue weight already. Water memory was mentioned in it however Peter Morrell thought it shouldn't be there since Homeopathy doesn't really use the term. I can add it back if you want, You should voice your opinion about it on the drafts talk page or else I'll never know. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a rewrite with some historical and biographical context. That would show why Hahnemann was ahead of the times for the eighteenth century but behind the times for the twenty first century. For example, he correctly observed that syphilis has an acute phase followed by an apparent cure and later a chronic phase. He attributed this to a miasma but modern microbiology has identified a more specific culprit with the discovery of spirochetes. He did a lot of experimentation with highly toxic drugs such as monkshood, belladonna and arnica. Many toxins elicit a protective stress response that involves nausea and voiding and he may have noticed a pattern. The only concept available at the time was the law of similars. The current draft has less context than the original and therefore I think a better startCayteCayte

True. There's a world-famous hospital in my city named after Hahnemann; he was no dummy, he just attributed diseases and their cures to the wrong causes (psora being one of his major blunders). He also seemed to be unaware that many diseases naturally remit, and that whether a person with a cold took homeopathic remedies, regular medicine, or no medicine at all, the best any of them can do is relieve symptoms as all colds pass in due course. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well make some proposals on the drafts talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please categorise correctly

You may have seen this already, but if not, these instructions may be of interest. .. dave souza, talk 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. A dirty task, but someone has to do it! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of [[Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg]]

Here is a notification that the deletion of

is being reviewed. The Drv may be found at this location. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted..." In the DrV, users may discuss relevant issues in attempting to form consensus, as well as assert Uphold Deletion or Overturn Deletion, with a specific rationale for the stated conclusion. ... Kenosis 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

this image is freely licensed

WTF? What is so hard about grasping the legal concepts? Seems to me we have more than our share of officious admins who think they have the legal knowledge of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, but who are more like Vincent LaGuardia Gambini on a bad day. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I hate to engage in hyperbole, but here's some. I notice that the image at right, being a freely licensed image, was kept in this IfD while the classic, even stunnning Einstein-Planck image was deleted because WP wants to be free. Free of what? of everything of value in the world that someone hasn't yet given over to "free-license"? Arrgh! Thanks for letting me vent here. ... Kenosis 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the importance of that picture is that it shows just how stupid the up and coming generation is. However, the Einstein/Planck picture shows just the opposite and heaven forfend that we should depict intelligence when ignorance and idiocy are the general rule. Bah! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep your talk page on my watch list just coz I love your comments! Sophia 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I occasionally have my good days.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF? I just saved the images to my computer for future reference. Two of the most brilliant scientists ever in a picture whose licenseholder must be dead by now. Thanks Jim for making my day with your commentary.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A nice AfD for you to consider

[9]--Filll 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Understanding WP:3RR

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

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

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

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

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

WP:POINT

You are in violation of WP:POINT with this nonsense: [10]. Keep in mind that escalation often turns ugly, and fake shields don't work against reality. Ponder. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yep, definite retaliation.

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

If you look at your page and ponder the shield comment for a bit I'm sure the neurons and synapses will fire and the light shall be upon you. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric

I saw this comment at User talk:Quadell, and I wanted to ask you, please stop and think about what you are saying. Accusing someone of admin abuse and wikilawyering, in a good-faith dispute about Wikipedia content, is a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith; especially when directed at someone as unfailingly good-natured and civil as Quadell. I politely request that you retract the inflammatory remark. In regards to your comment about the ArbCom, you should read their decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali, which dealt with this very issue. With respect - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we really do "see all" don't we? Sorry, VO, but I'll retract nothing. I realise Quadell is your friend, perhaps given the photo even your hero, but he was demonstrably wrong and he overstepped his bounds. We'll be following the next step in the procedure, and we'll be moving on as far as necessary to rectify the issue. I am not the only editor disgusted by Quadell's behaviour.

Secondly, while you may find him to be civil, I do not; yet, even if I agreed with you, I'mm afraid I have much higher standards: I respect knowledge and competence. Period. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite an example of Quadell's incivility? I've never seen him so. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Words aren't everything -- see my above comment to Abu. Actions can lack civility too. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy draft

Can you take another look at the Homeopathy draft? I think it's looking very good and I would appreciate some more input. It has drastically improved since its creation and any input would be great. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it a boycott? Or are you too busy to comment on improving the draft? If you're too busy then at least you could leave me a comment saying so. I intend to pursue this draft until it's live and I would appreciate some input from you on how to improve it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended...I've been a bit busy. I'll look at it tomorrow. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, see WP:NOT: wikipedia is not an advertising service [11]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume you were trying to accomplish something besides being a m:Dick. Dont template the regulars; if you wish to discuss something with another editor, try a little civility next time. It will go so much farther.

All that said, care to actually post a dif to the edit to which you are referring? Without context, I fail to see how Jim can address this.

Btw Jim, if you decide to delete this as trolling, don't mind my little post - my feelings won't be hurt in the least. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)