Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:21, 4 July 2012

• Archive List

This editor is a Senior Editor III and is entitled to display this Platinum Editor Star.

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

Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Archives

• User talk:JimWae/archive1
• User talk:JimWae/Canada
• User talk:JimWae/Lincoln, Civil War, etc.
• User talk:JimWae/Philosophy, Space, Time, Ethics
• User talk:JimWae/Articles dealing with religion
• User talk:JimWae/Formatting
• User talk:JimWae/Archives/2008
• User talk:JimWae/Archives/2007
• User talk:JimWae/Archives/2006
• User talk:JimWae/Archives/2005

• Talk Archive Finder

Defender of Misplaced Pages

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

history articles on wikipedia?

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

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu

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

Hi Jim, if you're more available now, I'm still very interested in speaking with you about your work on Misplaced Pages. Feel free to drop me an email at jfragasz_at_gmu_dot_edu. - Joan, 8/22/05

re: history articles on Misplaced Pages

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

September 11, 2001 attacks

Examination of public videos reveals evidence of substantially different facts. Consider the contents of this video:* New Video Documentary of WTC Collapse As you watch, note particularly the differences in fact between this video and the wikipedia article, that are verifiable by you by reviewing the sources yourself (ie renting, buying or downloading). We are being lied to. Maybe we want to believe the lies because the truth implies intent from within. -unsigned by anon IP

Misplaced Pages 10

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Misplaced Pages 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Misplaced Pages-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Talkback

Lincoln talk

Dear JimWae - I added some comments on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. I was interested in your observations on the "Shrewd" section. Any remarks? 36hourblock (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Visual Time Traversal

As I had communicated to Materialscientist the link is in the correct section and is appropriate. If you do not understand the subject you should not be editing the document.

Further evidence of my claim:

code.msdn.microsoft.com/lighttrap

Also maybe its time for you to review general and special relativity which state in no uncertain terms that this is a possible version of time travel, though it may not be in a physical sense it is undeniable. If you wish to further discuss the topic I am more than willing to do so. I am going to reinstate the link once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redoc (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• NO, that is an External link and See also is for internal wiki links. Also, you have made NO case for inclusion, you have merely pointed to somebody's general musings about time. I am removing it again at least until until you explicate at least ONE reason for inclusion.--JimWae (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in

I appreciate having someone with your level of training available for the Militant atheism discussion the article is predicated upon a lot of misconceptions. There is even a tendency to introduce Medieval realism in which the putative phenomena of M.A. is conceived as noumena...or as Dasein. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Baggini likely IS an atheist. See: http://julianbaggini.blogspot.com/2007/04/trivia.html and his book

The meaning of "pernicious" is not clear, even to me. It seems to suggest either dire "harm" or insidious harm. Some of the sources merely say militants view religion as "harmful". Other positions: 1> religion is more harmful than beneficial 2>religion is not good at all. Baggini says militants say it is "usually or always harmful". That some harm has been done in the name of religion seems irrefutable - but also that some good has been done. --JimWae (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Vandalism on Militant Atheism page

I'd like to express the strong protest against following edit of yours that I hold for being an act of vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience but to replace a quote from book that is possible to be verified in google books as correct one taken from page 65 by one using word "professional atheist" that give no hit within this book is by all means an inappropriate approach. Thanks for your understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Herberg misquoted Schneider. There is no hit for "militant atheist" in ANY of the FOUR sources I have provided for what Schneider actually wrote--JimWae (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, "militant atheist(s)" gives match within the Scheinder's book "Religion in the 20th century america" ("1 page matching militant atheists in this book"-page 31) whereas "professional atheist(s)" displays only this message: "From inside the book: Your search - professional atheists - did not match any documents." I apologize for any inconvenience. --Stephfo (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo is actually correct. The original text of the book uses the term "militant atheist" and was quoted in the same fashion as the other scholarly source stated. You can see for yourself. You replaced the reliable information with a personal Unitarian Universalist church sermon that did not pertain to the subject matter. I believe you owe both Stephfo and I an apology. Thanks, Anupam 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Of the 4 or 5 sources I provided, one was this book. Here you will see that the phrase "professional atheists" does indeed appear in the 1952 edition of Schneider's book. Also see the start of the paragraph Nevertheless, finally we have longer snippets from Schneider as the actual source - though I have updated my reasons to question the relevance of the paragraph in the article - reasons that closely resemble my *original* reasons (before Schneider text itself was found). Requesting we refer to Schneider's original source, rather than tiny snippets (with little or no context) from other works is not vandalism. The relevance of the paragraph to the article remains in dispute. Besides the 1952 and 1964 editions, there are 1967 and 1969 editions --JimWae (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the more complete text of page 32, which is actually off-topic. Note that "dwindling band of radical secularists" is further modified:

..."Both President Wilson and President Roosevelt did not hesitate to use religious appeals and sentiments in their public utterances and documents during wartime. The use of such phrases as "this nation under God" was intended to give a general religious solemnity to the struggles and to suggest officially that "in God we trust". Though such sentiments were received cordially by most citizens, they served to stir up the wrath of the dwindling band of radical secularists who objected even to chaplains in the military service.

"The appointment in 1939 of Myron Taylor to the Vatican as the personal representative of President Roosevelt and later of..."

--JimWae (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

From this we can figure that sometime during one or both World Wars, according to Schneider, the number of radical secularists who objected even to military chaplains was declining. Is that really an encompassing representation of the political history of either "militant atheism" or of "radical secularism"?--JimWae (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the quote "few remaining militant atheists and freethinkers" we have neither a time frame, nor mention of the USA, nor mention of which super-group a group of "few remaining militant atheists AND freethinkers" might be a part. This again is a poor representation of historical demographics and of political history--JimWae (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Readmission to Union = common term used by historians

The RS commonly use term "readmission" eg Zuczek - 2006 p 50; Woodworth & Winkle - 2004 - p 350; Princeton encyclopedia of American political history (2009) p 150. has many examples Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ranking states by order of re-admission to CONGRESS as readmission to Union is not NPOV. To state as fact that they were re-admitted to the Union is to state as fact that they left. There was no process of readmission that involved a vote by the populace on whether or not to "rejoin" the Union, as there is with admission. Putting dates and rankings like that in an infobox, where there is no opportunity for qualification, is to present a POV as fact. ----JimWae (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

readmission of Confederate States to the Union

JimWae,

it seems you have undone my recent edits for the seceded states claiming there was no process of readmission to the Union for the Confederate states.

With respect to just one of the states in question, Texas, I point you towards not only the entry itself where it is stated that "Congress readmitted Texas into the Union in 1870" but to an online archive of the Texas State Library entitled "Narrative History of Texas Secession and Readmission to the Union." You will find it at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/index.html.

The word readmission is used often on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere with respect to this question for all of the seceded states. As you will see in following the link above it is officially recognized and used by the state of Texas. Please immediately address your actions in light of these facts. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mcgotime

Mcgotime (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The position of the federal gov't and of SCOTUS is that the Confederate states never left the Union. I realize there are other positions. The link you provided says "readmission to the Union" (and even the term "Union") only in the headline (headlines typically use shorthand designations), nor does that article ever say Texas ( or any state) actually seceded. The Texas article is not a reliable source and needs editing to qualify the statement. It would be POV to say those states left the Union. I realize it could also be POV to say they did not. The solution, to remain NPOV, is to say neither. It would be POV to say the states were "readmitted to the Union". It could be POV to say they were not. For NPOV, say neither. WP:NPOV is a fundamental policy of WP. In accordance with NPOV, there is no field in Infobox U.S. state for date of readmission to the Union, nor for date of leaving, nor for rank order upon "readmission". --JimWae (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I regret not including WP:NPOV in my edit summaries - and that a longer explanation like this does not fit in that edit box--JimWae (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources, and we have links to hundreds of RS that use the terminology "readmission to the union". JimWae's personal belief that the term is legally meaningless is OR and not useful in editing the articles. For example Foner's standard history of Reconstruction uses "readmission" 28 times. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

legally meaningless?? Texas v White is not OR --JimWae (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

yes it is--JimWae is not allowed to give his personal interpretation of a primary source (Texas vs White), which said NOT ONE WORD about the process called readmission. Rjensen (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To say that Tennessee was the "26th state to enter the Union upon readmission" is clearly to say there were only 25 during the war. That clearly violates NPOV --JimWae (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

indeed the states are not double counted or we would have 61 of them. However the RS (and the people at the time) made "readmission" a key term. Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

But the edits we are discussing - and that you reverted to for NC - includes such double counting, except that it first subtracts 11. We can argue indefinitely about whether my edit summary was the best it could ever be, but I have already acknowledged it was not. Did you revert based on my edit summary or on the content of the edit you reverted to? --JimWae (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a solution that reflects the RS, which use the "readmission to the union" term all the time. The counting business is, I think, trivial and irrelevant and does not reflect what scholars say. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1> You reverted NC to include exactly such a "double count" AFTER a subtraction of 11. 2> We are not discussing just "readmission" but "readmission...." There are plenty of more neutral ways to say what happened rather than "readmission to the Union". We could take this up among other editors to determine what terminology is most in accord with WP:NPOV. My view is that "readmission to the Union" implies they were previously outside the Union - and I am sure many others will agree that more neutral terminology exists (such as "restoration to the Union", "readmission to Congressional representation", "readmission to full statehood", "restoration to full statehood" - all of which appear in RS). Why use a term that implies (or at the very least strongly suggests) they WERE indeed "out" when there are available easily-understood alternatives? We do not need to adopt the terminolgy of every source to tell the story of what happened. --JimWae (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

the term used at the time and by most RS is what Misplaced Pages is supposed to use. It is perfectly neutral. The so-called "implications" are entirely invented by JimWae and do not reflect the RS. Google returns over 3000 books that use "readmission to the union"--I checked the first 30 titles they give and at least 20 are reliable recent sources (not counting some old encyclopedias and a Dummy's books :) Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Placing this set of edits into the infobox of these states appear to give undue promincnce to a minor fact pertainging to each state WP:UNDUE. I doubt that edits like this reflect the mainstream view in academic historic circles. Much more happened during this period than the order of seccession and the order of reintegration. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Following the Rjensen recommendations here, I looked at one of the recent authors, and in the Faraghar 2005 Dissertation, page 55 refers to “the ‘right’ of secession” in quotation marks, as though there is no such right, and by extension, no need for readmission, unless it is to the Congress.

Next, I ran down Reconstruction in Mississippi by James Wilford Garner. He quotes the Supreme Court on page 65. “ ‘Admitting’, said the court, ‘that the ordinance of secession was a nullity, the state of Mississippi, neither in fact nor in legal contemplation, could be annihilated.’ This was the position … in Texas vs. White the following year.” Seems it's not just JimWae, but a 1905 southern historian referenced by others as a reliable source, interprets Texas v. White the same way.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Thorrington vs. Smith held that citizens living under the Confederate government owed it obedience for the sake of civil order. It would not recognize the Confederacy as de facto, so those same citizens did not incur the penalties of treason by law. Seems like we should all re-read April 1865: the month that saved America. Lots of folks at lots of levels seem to have worked to side-step the usual post-civil war slaughter so as to re-make a nation.

Reliable Sources may be used to be the voice of subjects, without becoming the voice of Misplaced Pages. In Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, on page 2, Mr. Davis would have the Constitution promising “equilibrium” between the sections. But it provides for dis-equilibrium among the sections in decennial census of population. So that is his voice, or that of Confederates, not WP. Just ruminating. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding Garner;s book on Mississippi--there is an entire section entitles "Readmission to the Union" pp 272-277 He uses that term on 20 different pages, because that's the term people at the time used as well as historians ever since. Garner p 93 quotes president Johnson using the term. Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no question that the term "readmission to the Union" has been used - especially by people sympathetic to the Confederacy, but also others who appear just to want a "simple" term. The question here is whether terminology that implies the Confederate states were at one point "out" of the Union and so needed to be "readmitted to the Union" is to be used in the voice of wikipedia. WP:NPOV allows the use of non-neutral terms for the titles of articles (giving as examples events that, as far as I know, have no other common title), but it also says "neutral terms are preferable". When non-neutral terms are used as titles, NPOV may make it appropriate that alternative terms (and their controversies) be presented also. Do we want to have a section on "Alternative terminology to readmission to the Union" in every article that uses "readmission to the Union"? WP:NPOV is best served when neutral terms are also used throughout an article, so WHY NOT use available alternative terminology (to "readmission to the Union") that is already well-understood and that also appears in reliable sources? The term "readmission to the Union" is a misleading over-simplification of what happened, and readers are not well-served by having wp present the story in terms that reinforce & encourage misleading, over-simplified, biased understanding.--JimWae (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When states are admitted to the union, there are acts passed in Congress, such as Hawaii Admission Act Admission Act for Hawaii and An Act for the admission of the State of Tennessee into the Union and Proclamation by President of Statehood of New Mexico following acts of Congress. What acts of Congress "readmitted" the Confederate states to the Union, and what terminology was used?--JimWae (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MANY reliable sources sympathetic to the Confederacy (and also others wishing to use a "simple" phrase) also say the Confederate states "seceded" from the Union. We avoid using that terminology because it implies the "secession" was actual and successful - which is certainly also not NPOV. --JimWae (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think it best to stay with a nuetral point of view. It does seem apparent that steps were taken to ensure that the populations of the southern states were not legally viewed as traitors. And this is remarkable when I think about it. It seems that there is genius behind the decisions pertaning to some of the turning points in U.S. history. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

readmission of Confederate States to the Union

Thank you JimWae and others for your contributions to this discussion of my edits.

JimWae, I am puzzled by your reading of the material at the State of Texas archive that I directed you to.

You state the following: "nor does that article ever say Texas ( or any state) actually seceded." The first sentence of that article is as follows: "Sixteen years after Texas joined the United States, in January 1861, the Secession Convention met in Austin and adopted an Ordinance of Secession on February 1 and a Declaration of Causes on February 2." Later it states that "Throughout the Civil War period, Texas existed as a state in the Confederate States of America, its status confirmed by the elected representatives of the Texas citizens." These are unambiguous statements from the State of Texas on the fact of their secession.

Your dismissal as irrelevant of the use of the word "readmission" in the article headline is without merit as you have ignored or overlooked the fact that this page groups several documents under the heading "Related Readmission Documents" and that the HTML meta tags for title (generally visible at browser top), description, and keywords (all three tags always accessible by viewing the page source code with a browser) all include the word "readmission." With five instances on this page the State of Texas is, on the evidence and by no accident, materially committed to the use of the word "readmission" with respect to this question.

If an actor in this drama can accept that this all actually happened wherefore the difficulty for others?

I pointed out the quoted statement from the body of the Texas page not to cite it as a source but rather to highlight the mild irony of it remaining while my edit was removed. Indeed, there are on Misplaced Pages many other instances of the use of this word in the context under discussion here.

You correctly cite the WP:NPOV as a fundamental policy. With respect to naming (our topic) it states the following: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." I suggest "readmission" is such a word. Rjensen's Google search returns as detailed in his post here tends to confirm its wide use, as do the many instances of the word on Misplaced Pages, as does the use of it by the State of Texas, as does my own experience. (That some may regard it as biased I don't think I need try and convince you of.) Use of "readmission" as contained in my edits thereby conforms with the WP:NPOV.

Therefore, with respect to the Info box I assert that "readmission" is fairly coupled with "admission" for the entries for the states that seceded. I do not agree with the suggestion here by Steve Quinn that such would "give undue prominence to a minor fact." The secessions, the Civil War, and the Reconstruction are gigantic, immutable facts of our national life and are hardly exceeded in importance by the state nicknames and mottos deemed worthy for the Info box.

It seems my numbering of the states as readmitted has been generally misunderstood and I gather it is a novel concept. I think it straightforward enough.

As with the first instance of numbering that attends these states' admission my added second instance attending readmission only enumerates the number of states then composing the Union. It does not replace the first instance, it only supplements it with further information. There is no double counting. Neither did I move forward in their order of admission any of the states that were in the Union at the time and did not secede. No state loses its rank in the order of which it was admitted. The second number only conveys, parenthetically, the information that when Tennessee, for instance, the first of the seceding states to be readmitted to the Union, was readmitted the Union totaled for the moment 26 states. That's not a POV, it's a strict tally.

You will have concluded that I am not now of the mind that those in favor of removing my edits have presented a convincing case. Perhaps something more will be said. I will check in later.

Thank you.

Mcgotime

Mcgotime (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• A state's adopting an ordinance of secession does not mean they actually have seceded. According to the US federal Gov't & SCOTUS, all acts of secession were "absolutely null", having no legal force - thus no state ever left the Union, acc to SCOTUS. Please read Texas v. White. Texas "did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union." SCOTUS ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. Familiarity with this case is essential to this issue, as is being aware that there is a distinction between breaking a contract, declaring a contract dissolved, and dissolving a contract.--JimWae (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• You have no support from anyone here for subtracting 11 states as of 1861, nor for setting the number of states to 25 before the full status of TN was restored--JimWae (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

JimWae, I have above pointed out apparent flaws in your earlier points made with respect to the material at the State of Texas archive and the WP:NPOV and you have not commented. I believe that to be dialogue in bad faith and bad form on your part. To introduce arguments and then simply abandon them without mention when they are fairly challenged is intellectually corrupt.

As for Texas v. White, it explicitly undoes the force of such statements as you have quoted from it by stating also that "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution." The acts of secession, confederation as the C.S.A., exit from the Congress, and the making of war against the Union are "revolution" by any reasonable standard.

Therefore, with respect to revocation of statehood, the bar that Texas v. White itself sets is met and well exceeded. Yet, as flawed as the ruling is it apparently stands and I suppose you will be unyielding on this point. Fair enough. I suppose as fiction goes it is a fair semblance of fact.

Thank you.

Mcgotime

Mcgotime (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• By your saying I have not responded I can only conclude that you somehow do not SEE my response above! An unsuccessful rebellion does not constitute a revolution. You still have no support (not from reliable sources nor from other editors) for the specific changes you made that were reverted. --JimWae (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Differing concepts of ‘sovereignty’ may be the fundamental difference among editors expressed here. Americans usually choose one of two alternatives. At the time of the Albany Conference (1754), when delegates wanted to appeal over the heads of provincial colonial legislatures, delegates appealed directly to the sovereign, Parliament. The British ‘Bill of Rights’ speaks to the rights of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign.

-- At the time of the Constitutional Convention (1787), when delegates wanted to appeal directly over the heads of provincial state legislatures, delegates appealed to the sovereign, the people. (well, the people voting, variously defined in states, including propertied blacks in NY, propertied women in NJ, propertyless men in Ma ... ) The U.S. ‘Bill of Rights’ speaks to the rights of individuals. The people are sovereign.

-- This change in the definition of sovereignty is described in Gordon S. Wood’s intellectual history, “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787”, ISBN 0-8078-4723-2. But there continues a strong American intellectual tradition that puts state legislatures center stage, surely in any balanced account of 1860 secessionists. It should be explicated and accounted for in every germane article, in the detail of the article, or in footnotes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraction (mathematics)

There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Fraction (mathematics) regarding your recent changes. You are invited to participate. Isheden (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver intro

You reverted my changes to the introduction. I don't think you should use estimates for populations. Unfortunately we must wait until February 8th for the latest census results, so the 2006 numbers I listed will have to do. Misplaced Pages should be for facts, not guesses. (This is the case for every other city page in Canada as far as I'm aware)

Those are official estimates, not guesses. Other editors of this article and of a great many other articles are fine with official estimates. Your version giving the population - without rounding - using data that is 5 years old does not merit present-tense. Note that figures are rounded to nearest 100,000 and nearest 10,000. Also "west coast" could have people looking at Vancouver Island on maps.--JimWae (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your request for quote

Is this link not working for you? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No preview available. I am in Canada --JimWae (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Coke bottle

Hi Jim - got your message on the Coke issue. Actually, in the "police interrogation" section, it is mentioned that Oswald said he ate lunch and went to get a coke when he encountered Baker. My point is that the issue of whether he actually had a coke in his hand is only germane to the timing issue. There is no dispute he actually had a coke at one point but as it stood the focus on the coke made little sense as the timing issue was not mentioned. Canada Jack (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jack - The word "coke" does not appear in the LHO article. Your last comments on the talk page seem to say it is there. Perhaps you will want to edit your comments there before they are replied to--JimWae (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I see: "Coca-cola" is there...........--JimWae (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nassau County

Hi there, I have an unusual observation and request to make. I've noted the fine work you've done with the Long Island article as it continues to evolve. However, the Nassau County article is absolutely pathetic and deserves exponentially better in relation to this very significant county's stature. The Bergen County article was once in that same position, but if I may humbly take some credit, the article has now been spiffed up and made much more aptly sophisticated and complete in accordance with that county's significance. I don't know Nassau County as well as I would guess you likely do, if I'm not mistaken. Would you be willing to take a lead role in transforming that article appropriately? Regards, 96.242.217.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Kilogram

Thank you for reverting DeFacto. I was about to do so, but I have been reverting so much of his rubbish that I have to count up my revesions. He has trapped me once with a 3RR so I am being rather wary. Martinvl (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree

Agree 100% with this. See also my reply at User talk:DVdm#External link removed. I planned to leave it to anon as an exercise, but you got there first :-) - DVdm (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the atheism definition incorrect. Who decided to change the definition of a word??? Colloquial misuse does not define a word. It needs to be fixed and add a caveat which is perfectly acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evictor480 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Atheism definition incorrect

• Moved to Talk:Atheism#Atheism definition incorrect on 2011-NOV-16 by --JimWae (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Atheism - Hinduism

I have removed your vague tag and your reason for tagging. Please start a discussion in the article talk page if you still disagree. If you reply here or in my talk page i might not check. Thanks for hearing. 117.204.89.8 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute for the introductory sentences at Christmas

Hi JimWae, we haven't spoken before but I noticed that you have been on occasion active in talk page discussions at the Christmas article, and I wondered if you could bring some input into a recent NPOV dispute about the opening sentences of the Christmas article. I recently revamped the entire introduction, and one user has reverted only the first two sentences of the article back to what they were originally. I feel strongly that my edits are more neutral and appropriate, and I'd love to hear your opinion. Please see the discussion here: Talk:Christmas#Opening sentence NPOV dispute. Thank you. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling Jesus "Jesus Christ" is giving him the title of Messiah. Better to use just "Jesus" (even better than "Jesus of Nazareth"). Even before Jesus was born, people throughout the Northern Hemisphere celebrated a winter holiday near the time of the winter solstice. There are winter festivals in many cultures. It is not observed ONLY "to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity", it is observed for other reasons as well. The name Christmas comes from the title Christians have given to Jesus and the word "mass" (which is a religious ceremony).--JimWae (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'm not sure if you are aware which side I'm on with this issue. I edited the introductory paragraphs to better reflect the 21st century secular nature of the holiday, as well as to remove what I feel is the POV nature of the original sentence "Christmas is to commemorate the birth of Jesus". The reason I added "Christ" was because it wasn't in an explicit context of "Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ", but as a fact of what the Roman Empire's state church did; they instituted the holiday as a commemoration of the birth of Jesus, the Christ. It also allows readers to make the connection between "Christmas" and "Christ". If you could comment on the talk page there to help reach a consensus, I'd appreciate it. Also, please see the article as it stood after my mass changes to the intro. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving lede

Got your earlier note, thanks. Funnily enough, I clicked in to it, having just revised my proposal to cut out and clean up some of the verbiage you mentioned --- so we are thinking along similar lines. Perhaps my updates address at least some of your comments.

A couple of specific notes...

To say that Thanksgiving is a "holiday for remembering and celebrating the year's good fortunes" does not push the idea that the "fortunes" are restricted to those that emerged during the immediately preceding year; it leaves open the possibility of simply "re-upping" thanks for more enduring "fortunes," such as "family," "friends," "food and shelter" or "freedom(s)" --- "fortunes" that were present in previous years, as well. This, you are correct to suggest, is what many people do.

The "variety of attitudes and approaches" line could be a useful, if somewhat subtle, way of acknowledging that both the view of someone like Fnagaton or Glider87 and the view of someone like Anupam have a place in the tradition --- but that there is no single authoritative or "correct" way of looking at Thanksgiving. This has been my general argument; it's not "either/or" but "both/and."

As to the "gratitude" line: Sources aside, I can't really imagine that most reasonable Misplaced Pages editors would find reason to quibble with the affirmation that "the unifying value" of Thanksgiving is "gratitude for the abiding presence of that which is felt to make life meaningful and worthwhile," understanding that the antecedent of "that" can vary with the individual.

Of course, your suggestion --- correct me if I'm wrong --- seems to be that sources can't be "aside"; that, even in the lede, every idea presented has to be meticulously sourced.

I don't know. It seems to me that the lede simply has to resonate truthfully as a summary of the article. A little subjective, I know. But, as I've been contending, the current prooftexting exercise --- insisting that the placement, in the lede, of every idea --- including specific phrases or words or even framings --- must be justified by showing that it already exists in a previous source --- is a recipe for conflict. As we're seeing, people who play this game invariably can find some mainstream source to back them up with an isolated sentence. So the process is doomed to fold back on itself in yet another game of oneupsmanship --- "My source is better than your source," etc. Exhibit A is Anupam's use of the World Book's line that "Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside each year for giving thanks to God for blessings received during the year. On this day, people give thanks with feasting and prayer."

Sources can be biased, too.

Your thoughts....

Johnlumea (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin and Talk:Atheism

It's likely that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) has the Atheism article on his watchlist and knows about the discussion. Whether he does or not, by removing the message you left him on his talk page, he's also acknowledged it, so there's no need to re-add it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

He said *ignored* and deleted--JimWae (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rationalization of denominators

3 ⁄ √7 = 3 ⁄ √7 x (√7 ⁄ √7) x (√7 ⁄ √7) = 3 √7 ⁄ 7

--JimWae (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CDP and inclusion in articles

Jim, I am the IP address individual who butted heads with you on Bay Shore, NY a month or so ago. Now, that you know who I am, I have a question. In reviewing Brightwaters, I noticed that the article lacks a distinction that it is a CDP. I was wondering and really don't care either way, just asking should the article contain that or not? I looked at the definition of CDP and see that Brightwaters, NY meets the definition of CDP, even more than West Bay Shore. So, must Bay Shore really state CDP or not? I know that you most likely could address this question and that's why I am. I only seek to find a common ground that may be we could grow an understanding of cooperation. Thanks.74.233.153.208 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

CDP is a designation to collect statistics for unincorporated areas (as that article says). Brightwaters is a village, so it is incorporated. The Census Bureau uses the boundaries of villages (and cities, towns, counties, and states) to group data. For unincorporated areas it makes up its own boundaries, which can change a bit from one census to the next. It usually names the CDP with the name of an overlapping community (North Bay Shore being a rare exception to this overlapping). Hamlets are unincorporated and have no official boundaries, though some towns produce maps that do include "boundaries". All the statistical census data for non-incorporated places is for the CDP (not the hamlet, nor school district, nor ZIP code), so it is important to state that such data is for the CDP. Glad to work this out with you w/o butting heads--JimWae (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the information and your explanation and what I have read about CDP has made it clear to me. In fact, your explanation confirms and explains what I read about CDP clearer. Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.53.216 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Atheism". Thank you. --un☯mi 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Garden City Park, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 1f1747f8c6381b915c04cb28ced74777

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hoaxes

Can you help me with crop circles? Before I started correcting it, the article seemed to be written as a hoax, unlike the dihydrogen monoxide petition which begs you to understand that their are making a social comment or political point. The crop circle hoax went on for a dozen years. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thanksgiving". Thank you. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

History of Virginia intro

Could you check behind me in my rewrite of the History of Virginia introduction? Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA.GIF International boundary POV

Per the Golbez and JimWae discussion concerning the International boundary. See the 6-color palette section

The International boundary might be replaced with another line font, say, solid (thinner than international) line on the Confederate side, dotted line on the Union side -_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-_ , or something.The universal descriptor could be

"Boundary claimed by the Confederate States of America, 1861 - April 1865."

the border changing with each new Admitted to Confederacy. That would put WV on the south of the line, but as of March 4, 1863, WV would stay #4 color (CSA-with-U.S. Representatives, same color as USA-with-C.S. Representatives) and the geopolitical change would show visually because #3 color would obtain to VA (CSA, no U.S. representatives). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

United States Article

I would like to get this article up to FA status, I see that you are listed as a source on the article, would you like to join me on this task?

--Iankap99 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

United States Article

I would like to get this article up to FA status, I see that you are listed as a source on the article, would you like to join me on this task?

--Iankap99 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RSs for State Atheism article

JimWae, I've added a section in the State Atheism Talk page requesting the RSs you've mentioned on your last edit summary there. Just wanted to call your attention to it. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

State atheism

Jim, I've removed a tag you placed in the State atheism article. For an explanation an discussion, see Talk:State atheism#Atheism/Theism a binary pair?. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A (somewhat late) reply

Hi Jim, Just letting you know that I replied to your comments on User talk:DASHBot/Dead Links Tim1357 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello JimWae. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 02:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Atheism

You have deleted my paragraph Atheist in the article Atheism and replaced it with two short sentences. I feel my paragraph was more informative and could have been developed further. As the article Atheist redirects to Atheism, I feel the term Atheist deserves a proper introduction for the reasons given below:

The words Atheist and Atheism are never used interchangeably, The word Atheist has far higher usage and is more familiar to the general public than the word Atheism, The ism in Atheism suggests it is some kind of religion or movement and so most atheists don't identify with it.

Please consider reinstating the paragraph I wrote with a view that it will be perfected later by other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMcLoughlin1975 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not delete, I edited. You gave only one source & editorialized from there. The new sentences cover the topic without WP:UNDUE weight--JimWae (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You did notice that 2 other editors already had problems with what you wrote, yes? --JimWae (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel the weight of my paragraph was undue because it is a short paragraph and is aimed at those readers that have been redirected from Atheist. Earlier, I searched the Misplaced Pages for Atheist and was left a little puzzled as to why I was directed to Atheism! Also, you have appended the edit to the previous paragraph to make it less visible. Are your views on atheism neutral?

The other two editors you say I had "problems with" refer to simple editorial conflicts and I feel I have accepted one's point on the member's only website and I believe the other has accepted my view that the term atheist needs addressing early in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMcLoughlin1975 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the lede of an article with a long history of editing conflicts. There are 50 archives at Talk:Atheism - where you can evaluate for yourself what is a neutral position. One could be happy that anything one adds "sticks". The Oxf Dict of Phil is also in print, the link is a mere convenience, and the entry is quoted. I do agree that defining an atheist in the lede is appropriate - something of which you have not convinced the other 2 editors - probably because you were presenting a one-sided, full-paragraph argument within the lede itself - see WP:UNDUE --JimWae (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are 'playing dumb' with regard to the two editors to which you refer. As I said, one was a friendly conflict over whether citing a member's only website was allowed. So that leaves just one editor: when I gave my reasons for the need for an atheist paragraph and I reinstated it, this editor took no further action!

You obviously have your own religious agenda so I believe you edit certain pages as heavily as other editors will allow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMcLoughlin1975 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

TryTalk:Atheism/Archive 41 for a start--JimWae (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor is now blocked as a sockpuppet of Lee McLoughlin Leicester (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Existentialism

Thank you for your work on the existentialism article. After going through the definition issue for the "libertarianism" and "anarchism" pages, I understand how nerve-wracking establishing a definition for a term is when there's never been much general agreement on what the hell it actually means. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 April 2012

LED lamps

Before starting another editwar, we should discuss the point "Comparison to other lighting technologies". Did you own the G7 Power LED Light Bulb, 900 Lumen, Warm White, 9 Watt? This lamp is bad, it has an CRI of <75 in real. I have tested over 40 different LED-Lamps from all known brands (Pilips, Osram, Toshiba, Samsung, LG, Ledon, Megaman, Bioledex...) and know their quality. In my opinion the referenced lamps should be well known, proved models who are really representive for the possible quality of the LED technology. So why not use the winner of the US Department of Energy's L-Prize, holder of the EPA ENERGY STAR ? This lamp has moren REAL lumen, an good CRI and costs the same? In my opinion, we should change back the LED-Lamp to the Philips Ambient 12.5W.

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Long Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nassau County and Suffolk County

Thomas Powell (1641–1722) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nassau County and Suffolk County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS discussion

See this discussion I have started at MOS about access dates. -Rrius (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood the issue. My edits are not aimed to have 2 different formats for retrieved dates. On the contrary, my aim is to keep them consistent. Your edit to Litre actually made them inconsistent again--JimWae (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:DATEUNIFY is to have formats consistent within an article, not within just each single reference. At present, policy allows accessdates to retain YYYY-MM-DD format, making two the maximum # of formats with an article (apart from any in direct quotes), not three--JimWae (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Layton

Why are you applying a new date format to Jack Layton? The pre-26 April 2012‎ version of the article only had two cases of iso, and I count over 100 you add. 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• and pre-October 2011, before I ever touched the article. This user is clearly going beyond the bounds of WP:DATERET, but is on a crusade to replace comprehensible dates with telephone numbers. The guideline was meant to avoid exactly this toggling of date formats which is clearly disruptive. --Ohconfucius 06:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi,
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam regarding a dispute between other editors, which briefly touches on some of your edits. Feel free to comment on the thread and provide your own perspective on events. bobrayner (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Selectively quoting me

You seem to like to quote me selectively, even regarding positions I have since revised or repudiated. However, in your post, you failed to quote the reason I previously gave for not having a module to convert citation dates into ISO: which is that script by Plastikspork does the job brilliantly, and you are free to install it if you wish. Also, I believe Gimmetoo has also created a plethora of tools which seems to perform some of the functions you describe/desire. I have not installed either for I have in excess of 40 script buttons, which can be confusing enough. I'm actually working on reducing the number of these. If you look at my working lists, I have actually been trying hard to avoid processing articles with all or nearly-all ISO dates in citations (ie not only is the list pre-selected to not include articles with only ISO dates in citations, I skip quite a few which are predominantly ISO), but still occasionally slip up, which is what happened most recently and for which I apologise. Thanks for your attention. --Ohconfucius 02:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

thomas powell 1641-1721

Hi jim,i have a few questions.i have recently put info on the thomas powell site,he is my 7th great grand father,i have done a ton of research.the problem i have is i don,t know how to leave the citations info when i went into the thomas powell artical,both my wife and myself couldn,t figure how,i have info that is very interesting by major sources.can i just send you the info and have you insert it after you have checked the sources out.If would let me know if this is possible,that would be great.i assumeyou would reply on this site,i could leave you my e-mail,but i don,t know if everyone can see what i am writing,my name is david powell,i am curently trying to get a dna contact from the england side of our family,i currently have a 67 dna marker sample on file with familytreedna site.look forward to hearing from you.David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davetom72 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to see what you have. I have to say that there are lots of things that sources disagree on, have presumed too much, and sometimes seem to have completely misunderstood primary sources (such as the name of his master)--JimWae (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Clipboard02.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clipboard02.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

CSA

Please contribute your comment and sources at Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag _____ . a) sourced as flown everywhere in the Confederacy, 1861-1864, b) sourced as "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or c) sourced as "never" seen by the participants 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I responded to every single point. I did it inline. And it was made unreadable.

And, on top of that, you have never dealt with the problem that your POV definition is less than half of the primary definition in all three major English language dictionaries. So you and Steve know better, and are a better or more neutral lexographers than Merriam-Webster or OED? Ha-Ha. 71.169.176.253 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a specious argument. It was unreadable, now it is readable. The anonymous IP created mess of that section of the talk page. I had to fix this person's mess. Also, the anon IP's action appears to be an attempt to hi-jack and dominate the discussion and the article. Also the propoed lede by the anonymous IP is vaguely worded and is not really based on reliable sources. The standing lede is accurate and clear. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)