• In the Common Era article, the part introduced by "thus" in the (2nd?) paragraph does not follow from the preceding. Also the part about year zero seems to be becoming the main topic of a sentence, increasing the chance of confusion there. I am going to make some changes. --JimWae 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. The anno Domini is also an unclear terminology: Thai people write in English text about the Lord Buddha. Their date system has at present the year 2550 (though their current New year is on (also) our January 1 while it had been on April 13 a few generations ago). That is the 2550th year after the Enlightenment of the Buddha (allowing the end of the cumbersome series of consecutive lives, the final stage, or his death if you prefer). Thus to Thai people, the year of the Lord would appear to be their traditional year, currently 2550, and not currently 2007 of the Lord Christ. Since at least a decade, both year notations occur simultaneously, for instance some banks' excerpts are in traditional years, other banks print transactions in CE years.
• 2. About your last remark, I'll have a look. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 18:37 (UTC)

I see you've reverted me & returned to "equivalent". "Corresponds to" is much clearer. Do we have to debate that all over again? --JimWae 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. 'Equivalent' is the most appropriate term, 'corresponds to' is reasonably close. But a lead is not supposed to be a series of paragraphs of one or two short sentences. It is supposed to have two to four paragraphs of some length, with related topics brought together. That made me not revert you but undo the splitting of the paragraph by which you had reverted me. Both our contributions were edits, not reverts. I had indeed maintained your proper reintroduction of iso 8601 and as that prescribes a year format of 4 digits, shown that as well. And I made clear that your earlier statement of "thus" not being proper, and which you had lifted out of the article, had been mistaken. I did so by rephrasing the sentence in a shorter and more readable way that clearly makes the second part of a sentence a consequence of the first part, hence with "thus". And it had required to use the term "correspond" because here it much more explicitly has to mean that BCE corresponds to BC and CE corresponds to AD. Here "equivalent" would be misplaced. I hope you notice the difference. Even for style reasons alone (repetition of 'correspond'), that required to reintroduce "equivalent" where that is the proper term (BCE-CE is equivalent, of a same worth for a same purpose, for BC-AD, where it does not as much needs to explain which term on the left corrsponds to which term on the right, as that is done by the final word, "respectively"). Hence my edit. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 21:12 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that 2 sets are equivalent?

• In set language, it means they have the same # of elements - this adds nothing to the article
• if you mean, as you seem to suggest here in talk (but give no hint in article text) they have some kind of equal value (social? moral?), then that is a POV statement. CE advocates would say it has more value, CE detractors would say less. Please consider my recent edit as a proposed way to avoid all the issues you have raised above--JimWae 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing the lede needs to say about year 0 is that it is not used (in either system) - anything further belongs in main body or in separate article--JimWae 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not commenting here, it went on at the article's talk page. I just saw that an earlier most unfortunate copy/paste-or-so mistake had created a ridiculous and misleading statement, I just inserted "allowing" in my comment mentioning the Enlightenment of the Lord Buddha: the reaching of the highest stage of awareness allowed him (years later in that same life) to reach the end the long series of consecutive lifes that according to his teaching are considered full of unhappiness, suffering. — SomeHuman 14 Sep2007 00:55 (UTC)

If you want to add tags that say "see talk page", you need to open a topic on the talk page, explaining in detail the concern you think should be discussed. Will you do that? Tb (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been travelling and just had a chance to check out the Bethpage Purchase page. I think it's terrific. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.I had been thinking for a while that it needed it's own page, you beat me to it though. I'll take a closer look at it in the next few days. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect. This isn't a 'can considered to be' this is an 'is'. The shape of space depends on the local gravity field. There's no fabric (so far as anyone knows anyway), but the shape is curved, and this isn't a matter of 'consideration', GR has very good experimental support, and that's what it predicts. GR is part of the standard model of physics.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JimWae. How are you? Some people are including the views of Joseph Ratzinger in the article agnosticism. I strongly oppose that. Please help me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The agnosticism article needs to deal with points raised against agnosticism. Wiki guidelines state this ought to be done throughout the article, rather than all in one section (in this case, a section named Ratzinger). See the atheism article for an example of how to deal with criticisms throughout. Some of the criticisms are the same for both. The agnosticism article also needs more historical origins context, especially needing to deal with Kant & how Kant changed how people understood any claim to know anything metaphysical - including any deities. None of Ratzinger's criticisms are original with him, and attributing them to him is both an appeal to authority and grandstanding. Much of what is in the Ratzinger stuff is unsourced synthesis that is published only on blog-sites. I suspect much of it is a misinterpretation of Ratzinger. Ratzinger's essays are about relativism - which he attributes to certain people influenced by Kant. While R is aware of the importance of Kant, and while he attacks Kant's conclusions (without attacking his arguments), it appears R does not realize just how much he himself agrees with Kant. R does not understand the difference between philosophy & science, he misrepresents Kant and agnosticism, then the blog sites misrepresent R (see http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/ratzinger.htm for a non-blog source), then the blog content gets copied to wikipedia --JimWae (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, noting this and your contributions to Christianity, among others, I wonder if you could have a look at Cafeteria Christianity. It looks to me like a bit of a POV mess, and yet I can't quite put a finger on what's wrong with it - I have flagged the Papal quotes as original research (since they do not refer to the phrase, but may be said to refer to the concept). It would be useful to have another perspective on this. Any thoughts? --Rbreen (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,

When you get a moment it would be great to have your response to my comments here. Thanks Andeggs (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took up your point on pre-1907 usage with an etymology section and altering the lead to reflect this usage. Please comment, if you have time. --soulscanner (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim for asking for the quotes. I have placed them at the talk page for you. Marax (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you doubt Lincoln said that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- because 1> there is no source that says he said it & 2> he was not a member of Congress that year--JimWae (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JimWae, thanks for making several clarifying changes to this article.Odin 85th gen (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there will need to be even more talk on the article talk page --JimWae (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the section Historical importance should be dropped, lest it become a battle ground about the legitimacy of a federal government! It was intended as a compromise, but is now repeatedly being subject to wholesale rewrites with POV and OR. This Article is not the right place to focus very heavily on the secession debate or the civil war. I simply referred to Lincoln's interpretation to draw out the historical relevance of the Articles concerning the evolution of the Union. PhilLiberty has since gone all out to prove how one-sided and wrong the argument is and in his enthusiasm he has taken the issue way beyond the scope of the article. In any event, you are doubtless right that using the talk page to remind of basic WP criteria and focus may help. Odin 85th gen (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JimWae! Thanks for your contribution, have you added this article to your watchlist yet?

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should asked admin to block this article in 2 weeks. Avoid hidden IP address and new cock puppetry accounts (Cassandraduress and WesKagle) of IbrahimMC. I've reported this user's violations in 3RR. Now, I think you must called admin to block this user forver at WP:SSP because I don't know how to do it. Thank you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, Please see Independence Day talk page. Thanks Lperez2029 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary here is odd - the disputed text does not appear in the given source. That's why I deleted the entire paragraph rather than toning down the POV Tedickey (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The link the other guy gave is to a page with a link to where the AoC text is. I deleted the entire paragraph because it is not clear that the reference is to DoI rather than other events of that year. At first, DoI was not particularly noted. The 1777 AoC at http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/Organic%20Laws/artconf.pdf does refer to "the second year of independence ..." AND yes, I now see the other text he put in is not there either--JimWae (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right - I added a note on ANI - don't really want to argue with someone who's making up his own facts. Tedickey (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the quote he has is just missing an ellipsis - but there is no reason to include the last part anyway. My objection is that it supports a year - but is only suggestive of a date within that year - and the suggestion is not strong enough to be included the way it is (& previously was: "A clear indication that the date of the inception of the United States was upon the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.") Without that overblown assertion, the relevance for inclusion is weak. The paragraph also begins with a nonsequential & disjointed "In addition..." --JimWae (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the quote " and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." isn't in the introduction and rationale, but comes from Article II. I believe it takes more than an ellipsis to splice together two separate parts of the document as though they were one statement. Tedickey (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• agreed - However, I could be wrong, but I do not think he is even aware that part is there. I think there'd be a dispute even if that part were omitted --JimWae (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There probably would be a dispute, since the non-quote portion is expressing a POV. But without a reliable (and pertinent) source, there's nothing in the paragraph which belongs in the topic. Tedickey (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, the term "-0" is unique to computing. Some operating systems don't have a sign bit so theoretically they can't hold negative numbers. They solve this by using twos complement notation, where '111111111111111111111111111111111' has the same meaning as 0, except that it is "minus zero"! --Red King (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does he ever violate 3RR? This is the safest and surest mechanism. I have encountered the type you describe, it borders on trolling but most admins would not say htis justifies a block. You could flag this at the Admin's noticeboard ... I am not absolutely sure but I believe there is a category for people who make disruptive edits, or who are non-collaborative. You may also be able to do an RfC. The point is, what you need at this stage is to get the attention of many other people, and many admins. I am going off-line soon but will look at what is going on there myself, later. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he makes one edit a day, the easiest method is this: just revert him once a day ... or even once a week. You have been here forever and will be here a long time; you will likely win any waiting game. If you can put up with one revert a day I bet within a month he goes away - or seriously escalates to a point where you can call for an RfC or post something to AN. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged your comment there into another section where we have been discussing the opening sentence of the article. I'd prefer not to have the same discussion in two places. I hope that's ok with you. Cheers! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I was addressing one specific, lame proposed change & the previous title "tv-episode" did not seem like the right place. There's more than "renaming" the article afoot --JimWae (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on a referral to the Administrators under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I will pull the trigger on that if Phil continues his edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I just made my second referral on 3R at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The first one got lost in the shuffle. The recent referral is on United States Declaration of Independence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you put an Undue Weight claim on the article in the Religion, Slavery, and Secession. Hence, as I mentioned on the the discussion page, I will not remove my NPOV tag until the Undue Weight (which also falls under NPOV) is settled. Are you raising an objection to my future removal of the NPOV tag? If so, I will postpone removing it. The removal of it falls under MY responsibilty as I volunteered to remove it when all NPOV issues (including your Undue Weight claim) is resolved. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about your claim of generality and undue weight is taking place.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a history of problems with NPOV. Let's leave the Confederate States of America page alone. If you feel compelled to revise history, write a book.Grayghost01 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is a co-operative project. Telling people to "go away" is no solution. The problem in this case is your wanting to present Confederate POV as fact --JimWae (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you working on an article for the Central Railroad of Long Island by any chance? If so, my list of stations is always available for the taking. ----DanTD (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the charges are baseless, you were reported on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War by User:Grayghost01, in case you are interested in responding there. older ≠ wiser 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix other things in the same section.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked-up that you've made the most edits to the Abraham Lincoln article. I've made a few changes, mainly prettifying. The main obstacle to GA is the usual laborious task of adding inlines. Anyway thought i would let you know, kind regards Tom (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at [www.dictionary.com]:

readmit - To admit again; to give entrance or access to again. rejoin - to join together again; reunite.

admit defined as "entry", so readmit is synonymous with "reentry".

join is "bind", so rejoin is synonymous with "rebind".

Thus, I basically said Virginia "rejoined" or "rebinded". You say that is not NPOV, and your "readmit" or "reentry" is, because it supposedly doesn't imply that Virginia left. However, Virginia MUST have left if they need to be admitted again, or enter again. Whereas I used rejoined to infer the more sublety of binding again, that is to rebind. Thus the word I used means what you say you want it to mean, but you changed it to a word that you accused me of meaning.

Given the lack of fluency demonstrated, here, in the English language ... please consult some dictionaries before you embark upon future harrassment and provoking edits. And if you want the sentence to mean rebind vice reenter, you'll need to go undo your own goofy edit.

Finally, you might want to check the U.S. Congressional language. You seem to be unaware that acts of Congress were involved approving a NEW constitution for Virginia, as well as other things, so your goofy edit that congressmen were merely readmitted to the Congress is completely out-to-lunch compared to what actually happened historically. This historical fact is required learning for school kids in Virginia's Standards of Learning. It helps to have grown up here, because the locales know the history a little better than those from New York.

Please quit editing in your self-made Pseudo-History into the wiki articles, and go do some research first.

Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. .

If you care to discuss items on the talk page, that's fine. Meanwhile this is your first official warning. The Great Train Raid article is about that topic. Quit inserting your POV about Lincoln and Fort Sumter into that page. Go edit the Lincoln and Fort Sumter pages. That said, if all remains unvandalized, we can move some front end material into the Virginia page, however, your vandalism is occuring there too at the present moment. Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Virginia in the American Civil War. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Strike 2. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Go take a long walk. My edits are not vandalism --- AND I did not even edit any articles between your 2 warnings. You are abusing the process & it is you who is being disruptive to wikipedia --JimWae (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are my recent edits to that article. Nobody in their right mind would consider any of that vandalism. Accusing me of vandalism for such edits amounts to a personal attack --JimWae (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Grayghost01. I mentioned your name and provided diffs relating to his response to you in the request. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (not very long) article is currently undergoing a Military history A-class review. Would you have time to give a quick read through and see what could be improved as the main editor wishes to take it to featured article next? The prose could do with a massage too, especially the intro. Sorry to contact you out of the blue like this but I remembered your good work on the American Civil War article, which I have also edited. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply:

• Sorry, you feel that way. Yes, the article is a mess - but so is much of the literature on ontology. You will see that very few article on wikipedia quote specific dictionary definitions - and those that do, ought not to. The entry just repeated what came before, but in fewer (and less explanatory) words - though I doubt, given the history of ontology, the article will ever clearly explain what ontology is --JimWae (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you really want to invest much of yourself in something taken from a dictionary? --JimWae (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder since you approach the limit

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just how many days do you think 24 hours is? I HAVE used the talk page, YOU have not --JimWae (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JimWae: It is a pleasure to read your version of the lead of Ontology after I included there Metaphysics needed for the lead of Existentialism. I am trying to fix the leads of Existentialism and Phenomenology (philosophy), but there is a strong resistance (see User talk:Banno#Request for help: Existentialism, Talk:Existentialism#New Introduction, and Talk:Phenomenology (philosophy)#The introduction). I make mistakes, but I do not have energy to argue on the talk pages, but rather try to achieve improvements through subsequent edits. They reverse my edits also using various pretexts instead of correcting text in good faith, as you did with Ontology. So, maybe you can review the leads of Existentialism and Phenomenology, please? You will immediately see my intention to make them complete (WP:LEAD) and understandable for laymen with high school education by looking at my last edits. Sincerely. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have some ideas for Existentialism - but I fear Phenomenology is hopelessly mired in imprecision & solipsism - and can be approached only from a historical paerspective --JimWae (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, forget Phenomenology for the editors have not got tired yet and they may resist too vigorously. I think, Existentialism is ready for your compressive touch; my English is not good enough and I do not have energy to argue. I made two subsequent corrections of the lead without touching the content to avoid arguing, but just to improve progression of the definition. I made a small correction of ontology to improve clarity of the lead. Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I found energy and لennavecia, the administrator they complained to, opened the way for a simple and accessible lead of Existentialism. If you had time to take a look at Talk:Existentialism#LEAD: What some sources say and say something, please? Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: How about the following sentences defining existentialism: "The existential interpretation emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience. Such solitude makes the right condition for freedom of choice, but it also brings anguish of the inseparable responsibility to the individual, who recognizes the futility of existence that must go on without hope or help, and tends to deny his own responsibility and the truth of his freedom.", please? Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, existentialism emphasizes that humans must make choices for which they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that the choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. The "anguish" part is comes from Sartre - but seems not to be universal. The "futility" is also non-essential & need not be included --JimWae (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will use it, but said more directly (with less passive voice) for easier reading (by laymen... and me too): "Existentialism emphasizes the difficulty of humans, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct." Thanks a lot! --141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a question about your edits to User:Runteldat at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Confusing_series_of_edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that it was a misquote on the agnostic term and I changed it. I am however of the oppinion, that we cannot exclude from agnosticism the fact that some agnostics believe that it is different from theism - atheism. (Jazzdrummers (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure what the matter is with the source I used in the section on Positive Atheism. The source states: "positive atheism has since been redefined to exclude Gora's secular aspect, becoming a form of atheism that encourages peaceful cohabitation with religious individuals." Anyway, I have edited the article to now read "The term no longer includes Gora's secular aspect and is now used to describe a positive philosophy alone."

Please review and consider removal of the dubious tag.

Please use the Talkback tag to notify me of your response here. Dorkins (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've decided that the source I used is a wiki. It's not - rather, it is a site anyone can write a 'Guide Entry' for. I'll wait until there's an 'Edited Guide Entry' and then reference that instead. Dorkins (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The meaning of "secular aspect" is completely unclear. From my quick read of the wiki, what the author means (& says, later in the article) is that militancy is no longer part of it. However, the author gives no source & his own credentials as an authority on Gora (or anything at all) are not established - this is a concern with all wikis - edited or not. Furthermore, the atheism article is not the place to go into detail on somebody else's (unsourced) changes to Gora's system. If you can find a reliable source saying something meaningful about militancy being dropped by his chief followers, you would have a better case. --JimWae (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further: According to the Atheist Center website: Atheist Centre is also actively engaged in Secular Social Work activities for comprehensive rural development and rendering assistance to the people to develop an alternate way of life on secular and humanist lines. --JimWae (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has considerably more experience than I on Wikipedia, I do not need to tell you that there are hypersensatives out there. Phrases like, "Anyone with a modicum of sense should . . . " may be satisfying (and even accurate), but they probably do little to move discussion forward. I've had some pinheads seriously accuse me of violating WP:ATTACK for less. It's just a thought.

Now as to the matter at hand, Continental United States: I've left some comments over at the talk page. Catch you later. Unschool (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think that there is any evidence that anyone took offense. I was just speaking from past experience. I used the exact same defense that you just employed, saying that I not only meant to offense toward anyone, but that I had not even checked the edit history to know who had written what. But it didn't matter, I was accused of violating WP:ATTACK because I was talking about people, not articles. Bunch of crap, I'm sure you'd agree. Unschool (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving that table. I am still trying to learn how to manipulate that template, and your assistance was a good help.Raymondwinn (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim i try to add some color to the wiki sight but It seem my creative input is pushed around a bit ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos (ESPECIALLY, but not only, those that early in the article) should advance the readers' exposure to the article topic. I like photos of the sea - but they are mostly artistic & do not distinguish locations well. Please sign your comments (helps avoid edit conflicts with bots) --JimWae (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see I have a lot of experience with all the outdoors of Brooklyn Nassau Suffolk Ive lived in each place We would travel as Kids by the dozens to city concerts Parks Etc Major town outings with the likes of lindenhurst Massapequa Babylon Bensenhurst Sheepshead bay Graves end Coram patchogue Lots of great times with long Island Bands Fire Island water skiing Calming Fishing surfing Ive swam in all points of the Island I Love NY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs) 05:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re your edits to New York: Technically you're correct that Islip is not a "city" but there are no major cities on Long Island, just huge townships. But the others listed are not "airports". There is no "New York Airport". Were the temps collected at LaGuadia or JFK, or more likely at Central Park in the city, not the airport? I doubt all the others are airport names too and in any case there's no citable evidence the temps were taken at airports and not "cities" as the source claims. As you know, the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I see where you're coming from, but I think the change to link Islip to MacArthur Airport is good enough. Another option would be to take out the Islip line altogether (although I don't see a real benefit to that), or maybe footnote it to mention it's not technically a city. Let me know what you think. Station1 (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not obliged to repeat the errors of our sources, when there are alternatives - which I why I changed cities to localities. As far as Islip is concerned, the only weather station is at the airport. I would not have noticed any of this except that somebody had substituted the LI city of Long Beach in -- an unlikely location for a weather station given that JFK is moments away --JimWae (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Locations" is OK. I didn't see that, only noticed your edit summary. I saw you changed Long Beach - good catch. Station1 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the various reverts, but it looks like we both were misreading the sentence in question. The second sentence in the lead is about the Seattle Metropolitan Area, which covers pretty much all of King County, Snohomish County, and Pierce County. In the case of comparing metropolitan areas, Seattle is about 1.5 million larger than the Vancouver metropolitan areas.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Stuart.Hodgson.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stuart.Hodgson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting ready to have a go at Thomas Jefferson and religion. please see comments in Talk:Religious_affiliations_of_United_States_Presidents#Thomas_Jefferson. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on a separate article myself. I put a start at Thomas Jefferson and religion. I took a thematic approach rather than a strictly chronological one, though themes are organized by their earliest appearance--JimWae (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll start looking at your sub article today. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does facebook have to to do with any of the information posted on the listing for the photographer? It is an accurate biography of an emerging artist that has a credible fan base in New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcvw (talk • contribs) 08:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of articles that were clearly started by the title holders that obviously "slip through the cracks" for some odd reason...what a shame. Do you even review the external links? citations? do you even do your own search on the titles of the article? Even if it is someones name or another topic? I'm not trying to instigate anything I'm trying to understand why this is occurring sir... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcvw (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So, do you think you have a claim to be allowed to "slip through the cracks"? --JimWae (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it listed you as one of the authors or owners of the page I thought I would write to you. I don't see any link or any other way to report possible pranks.. but in the Character of Jesus at the very end someone has added "jesus was gay". Just thought I would point it out and hopefully get it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.88.246.140 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out that vandalism. I fixed it --JimWae (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if you'd use the talk page to talk to editors, instead of repeatedly adding tags as you are doing on fraction (mathematics); this is likely to frustrate your fellow editors. Of course, I agree with you questioning statement in articles, and I don't mind fact tags generally, but "talking by tags" seems needlessly aggressive if you're encountering a responsive editor who's taking responsibility. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I had already done so 3 minutes before you posted this - and now my further comments there have been interrupted. I always add comments to tags - out of respect. When I think further discussion might be needed, I use talk pages (which take considerable time - and I have almost 2000 pages on my watch list). I will assume good faith on your part, but please do not assume I am offending others - if you feel offended, say so yourself. In hockey, there's a special p[enalty for "3rd man in" a fight. Are you defending yourself or someone else. I consider tags aggressive only when there is no explanation. I find the comments are often addressed more speedily than talk pages. Rick & I have already met - --JimWae (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not offended, nor defending myself or someone else. I just wanted to make a suggestion. But it's now clear to me that it was counterproductive, so I won't continue. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks for the fix. I had changed that on a previous iteration of the article and guess I didn't proofread well enough - thanks for the catch.Basket548 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, not sure if you heard, but the county announced that it was going to close the restoration. A real travesty as far as I am concerned. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: [3] at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thank you, Jim. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I answered there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your new message to me. Thanks! I've answered at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the reverts, but while I'm sure "rejects belief - rather than just defending a negative" means something to you, it means nothing to me, much less is an explanation or justification for your edit, which really needs to be explained on the talk page. Your two other edit summaries, "had to dig to find this again", and "add ref" are no help either. The last one, "woefully complete", provides a hint about your objection, but, again, it really must be explained in full on the talk page, preferably with before and after versions. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You reverted before I had a chance to explain in the talk pages - then I had other things to do until now. You are not keeping up with the discussion. The FA article had 3 defs. There has been no discussion about removing any of those 3 defs. Whether YOU can discern any difference between rejection of belief" and "denial of existence" is irrelevant. The unopposed consensus has long been to keep all 3 definitions. Do some reading & try to "keep up". If atheism is defined primarily as the assertion that deities do not exist, then to defend it you need to attempt to prove a negative - something virtually impossible in most cases & certainly impossible re some superhuman creator of the universe. Meaningful FA content should not be removed without discussion. If you want to learn the difference, I suggest the EB & the Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles --JimWae (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't totally follow what you mean when you say "Undid revision 277967701 -- other forms can also be agnosticism" and undo my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetxo (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Look here --JimWae (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote: I have restored to March 27 version. There was too much to "cleanup" in what was put in on Apr 3. There were too many categories with no groupings, and including atheism as a type of theism (along with the text filled with empty jargon) was incomprehensible --JimWae (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was not enough cleanup: the categories exist, and they are groupings of their own. There were not enough categories in the first place and some are incorrectly grouped. Instead of being rude and saying 'empty jargon,' please say what you do not understand so the article can be improved. 'Atheism' is just a modification of the word 'theism,' and any religion that says 'God is unknowable' or something that God is not, e.g. knowable, is being atheistic in a sense of what is not God ('not theos;' a-theos.)--Dchmelik (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]