User talk:JimWae/Archives/2011

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Quote box-left

Template:Quote box-left has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 22:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Census update

HI. Can you update this template Template:Data United States for jan 2011 please ? See: http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html Thank you ! Chestatsh (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Chestatsh (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Time does not exist

We think time is a physical thing that we can move foward or back in. I say it is an invention of the consious mind. If you belive time exists and it is effected by a blackhole then time must have mass. Only mass is effected by gravity and thats what a blackhole is all about. You move forward in time by changing locations as everything expands and you can go backwards by dreaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.161.184 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

United States

I would like to get this article up to FA status, I have listed it for peer review, but do you know of any problems off hand that can be fixed, please respond on the article talk page so that all editors can see. Thanks --Iankap99 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Hello, JimWae! I recently made this change to the article to improve the POV, but was reverted. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson with requested on slavery

You removed the text that Jefferson "did not oppose slavery as a politician". But the source supports it. Your justification: "he also wrote a phrase in the DoI against slavery - which was removed to secure wider agreement amongst signers". [1] Jefferson never condemned slavery in the Declaration; he criticised King George on the slave trade, and for inciting a "domestic insurrection". He was upset the King was using slaves in battle & promising them freedom. Let's be clear: Jefferson opposed the British attempt to free slaves in the Declaration (both versions). So I undid your edit [2], and then added a citation on the Declaration [3] (even though this part is not about the Declaration, you wanted more evidence -ok) Was Thomas Jefferson an Authentic Enemy of Slavery? David Davies, Oxford, 1970, pg 6.

Now you raised another objection, saying you want a quote. You justified it with "he also wrote that slavery was bad for both races" [4]. Again, that's not quite accurate. Jefferson's words have been misused by some scholars: "[T]he whole commerce between master and slave is...despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other". Recent scholars say: "This sentence suggests that Jefferson may have been concerned about the effect of slavery on the slave. The rest of the paragraph, however, says nothing about the slave, and concentrates only on how slavery corrupts the master class." What "this passage illustrates", when you read the whole thing, is "Jefferson's understanding of the inherent danger of slavery to republican society", and "that Jefferson's only concern here was for his own race and what slavery might do to its members." Nothing on the abused children or women or "smaller slaves". Nor was his solution to help blacks. Jefferson wanted an apartheid (all white) society. See Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On, Paul Finkelman The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 203-4.

I can give you a quote if you want, but the premise that Jefferson opposed slavery as a politician is false, and the sources I cited support the text. Maybe we can work together to tweak the wording. Do you propose an alternative?Ebanony (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not the one proposing an assertion in the text. I am questioning your assertion and asking for a quote. I also note that finding one source that might agree with you does not make it a fact, it would need general agreement among scholars. There are sources that indicate he was publicly opposed to slavery -- even if the reason was NOT sympathy for the slaves. There are also sources that indicate he intended to free his slaves. JimWae (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If he wrote, as you seem to indicate above, that he was against slavery because it corrupts the master class and endangers republican society, then you have provided evidence that he publicly opposed slavery JimWae (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I made no "assertions", and I didn't rely on "one source". Everything I said is mainstream scholarship. Looks like you didn't read the sources:

"Jefferson's 'hatred' of slavery was a peculiarly cramped kind of hatred. It was not so much slavery he hated as what it did to his society. This 'hatred' took three forms. First, he hated what slavery did to white. Second, he hated slavery because he feared it would lead to a rebellion that would destroy his society. Third, he hated slavery because it brought Africans there and kept them there. None of these motivated him to do anything about the institution." See Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery, Paul Finkelman. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pg 203. This is why it's important to read the source instead of assuming it "provided evidence he publicly opposed slavery" (it doesn't). And Paul Finkelman is no fringe scholar; he's mainstream, and his work is too. "President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy and Senior Fellow, Government Law Center" & "He is an expert in areas such as the law of slavery" [5]. See also [6]. His articles & books are reviewed, and often cited.

David Brion Davis says that Jefferson did nothing to end slavery in his book on pg 179 (I don't have the copy with me at the moment, but he defiantly says it). See Davis, David Brion The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823, 1975 pg 179. And before you go on with minor POV's, know he's a well respected Yale historian (Harvard graduate) whose works have won many awards including the "Pulitzer Prize, the Bancroft Prize, the American Historical Associations' Albert J. Beveridge Award, the National Book Award, and the 2004 Bruce Catton Prize of the Society of American Historians for lifetime achievement." [7]. This particular book was "Winner of the 1975 National Book Award, the Bancroft Prize, and the AHA's Beveridge Award". He's reviewed by the NyTimes, NY Review of Books, and it was said of his: "His book is a distinguished example of historical scholarship and art."--From the citation for the 1975 National Book Award [8]

Nothing minor or fringe about what I wrote. Now, what "sources...indicate he intended to free his slaves"? That is a straw man argument. It would change nothing. Many people freed slaves & did not publicly oppose slavery - George Washington for example. But unlike Washington, Jefferson only freed the Hemings in his will. The rest were auctioned off to pay for his lavish lifestyle. The David Brion Davis pg 176 is the "quote" you wanted. I'm adding that citation, which is justified.Ebanony (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You want to include the assertion he "did not oppose slavery as a politician". I mentioned on the Talk:TJ page that the meaning of this is somewhat vague. TJ did oppose slavery in that he was against it and wrote against it - AND he was a politician AND he publicly opposed it (for whatever reason he had). Perhaps you want to say, in line with your sources, that he neither proposed nor took any steps to end the institution of slavery (though he signed the law ending importation of slaves). Why this is noteworthy about TJ (and not noteworthy about every other politician who did not press for abolition) is, I suppose, that TJ wrote "all men are created equal". JimWae (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if he proposed separation, he would seems to be proposing an end to slavery. He had little power to DO anything about the institution beyond persuasively remarking on its evils. Even Lincoln held it was not within his power to abolish slavery where it existed until the country was at war over it. Perhaps we should assert that he never joined an abolitionist society?

Maybe you want to say "He did not propose any legislation to abolish slavery"? --JimWae (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Sumter, Operation Brothers at War

Hello! I just wanted to flag you on a post I've made here regarding the possibility of getting the Battle of Fort Sumter up to FA class in time for its 150th anniversary. This is in connection with Operation Brothers at War. I've noticed you've done some excellent work on this and other Civil War articles. Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. And it would be wonderful, if you are so inclined, to have you among the ranks of the Brothers at War special project. Cheers, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR violation reported

I am placing this notice on your page because of your prior involvement with User:Markglad and the article Thomas Jefferson. After responding to a request for third opinion I placed the article on my watch list, within hours I noticed the occurring of constant reverts. After viewing the article history, it appears that four editors(including yourself) have been reverting unilateral additions by Markglad against consensus. Viewing his edit history, he seems to have very few edits outside of the edit war on the Jefferson article. I believe this to be grounds for a block of some sort so I have placed this matter before the administrator's noticeboard. If there is anything you can add to the report there, please do so. _{nonsense with this}WikiManOne^{speaking drivel!} 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TJ

Ok, I don't have a problem with your rewording of the edit. Contemporary or for that time is fine with me. Are you satisfied with it now, or are there still parts you want to change? You'll notice it uses a new set of sources, and does not discuss for/against slavery.Ebanony (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

dubious

You said in your edit the sentence was "dubious" [9]. I'm sure the sentence could be fixed, but I'm not sure what you feel the problem is. You didn't start any discussion in the talk page either, so I'm asking you to clarify: what is wrong, and what do you want to be done?Ebanony (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

Excellent work on the AfD, people should not abuse the system for political purposes! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Time 2011

hi jim! i'm a student! well according to my point time is undefineable quantity as time also occurs there where there is no omtion or events as i ve read earlier that time is a quantity use to sequence events? but to me motion and events whatever they are always occur in squence and as far as duration between there intervel is concerned well duration is just a relation between space and numerics so I think that time is also there where no events takes place because time is one dimensional quantity which flows from past to future and occurs in present right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raza536 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In which universe is there no change & no motion?

If time "flows", what is its rate of flow?

The article's lede does not attempt to fully define time, but rather connects it with its most essentially related concepts. Time is too primitive to be defined in terms of anything more primitive.

Duration is definitely a temporal concept, not just a spatial one.

You make a good point about the events already being in some sequence - they do not all happen at once. Sometimes we perceive events in a different sequence than they occur - such as supernova exploding hundreds of years ago that we have not seen yet. We do assign "times" to events (even ones less complex) to keep track of their sequence. JimWae (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

hi

well m a student and keenly intrested in the unrecognizable behaviour of time and i have some concept on time which i want to bring into your notice???? 110.37.53.163 (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can start by writing something about it below--JimWae (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Time_Human Concept

Well I'm confused where to start from ??? as in above discussion you said in which universe there is no motion or events? right?? the universe before bigbang had no events and no motion but there was time which is against the definition provided by you in your definition you said it is a part of measuring system to sequence events what i want to bring into your notice is that motion always occer in wequence and events and their duration also occur in sequence and time is just a human concept to creat a relation b/w space and numerics If we talk about Einstein's Mass Energy equation time is also there when a body travel with speed of light and in black hole no speed of light could escape from it and as said in your article that in black hole there is no time because there is no motion or events but to me there also occur time because age can also pass there "so what is the origin of time and what is its nature"? can time be defined in terms of sequence of events and their duration??? NO time can't be defined in this manner Time is the totally loss of life(Not a philosphy). well Time perhaps is a physical quantity but its behaviour can not be defined in this manner too. And as far as time travel is concerned time machine can be made in a sense that if a person took 1hrs to cover a distance by car or any vehicle we reach there in 15min its a time travel but time machine can not be made in that sense that we can see or go to future/past(here i should say that events always occur in sequence and it is not possible to "quantify time")(Raza536 (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)).

See my response at Talk:Time#The Lead, yet again --JimWae (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"slavery" edits

In the 'Confederate States of America', you restored a reference to "slave" states for those which would make up the Confederacy. In a modern sense, that was entirely so, the alternative never tested.

However, in good faith, some editors would use the convention "states with slaves", because "slave state" and "slave power" were northern and abolitionist epithets of the time, not terms the Confederates would apply to themselves. By these editors' reasoning, adopting the terminology of an adversary while treating an historical subject is a biased point-of-view. I wonder if there might be progress towards a consensus of style, maybe by a larger discussion of usages, or the variety of terminology over the course of an article.

I readily admit that the reasons for becoming a "Rebel" in grey included more than a single belief concerning "slavery". There were often simultaneous alternative personal motives, social, religious and political justifications, economic and speculative interests, all well beyond "slavery". But never allowing any use of the convention "slave state" becomes itself a point-of-view to modern readers.

The POV danger on the one side is avoided if an article holds a variety of desciptors, alternatives such as "state allowing slaves", "cotton state", "state with slavery", "Deep South state", "state with lawful slavery", "state with over one-fifth of its population held as slaves", etc.

And for the POV danger on the "slave state" side, if the term is reserved for the specialized purpose of introductions in encyclopedic articles for brevity and conciseness it seems to me "slave states" works just fine. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, apart from stylistic variety, sometimes with deliberate point-of-view, even provocative intent, the conflict may be called, from Northern-most to Southern-most, the (a) Great Rebellion, (b) Civil War, (c) War Between the States, (d) War Against Northern Agression, (e) War for Southern Independence, or, apart from all of that, as genteel Grandmother Susie, our beloved family 'hostess with the mostest' matriarch, ruled at one contentiouos family reunion (1976), (f) "The Late Unpleasantness". My preference is "Civil War" generally, and the others used in appropriately defined context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My revert was to the removal of "slave" from the sentence, not to an alternative wording. The various declarations of secession & the CSA constitution repeatedly characterized themselves as "slave-holding states". The Mississippi declaration of secession specifically said "It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union". Usage of the term is justified both now & for the past, and not just an epithet. Slave-holding could be an occasional alternative --JimWae (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

time is on the side of

Thank you for respecting my efforts thus far, by even talking to me. I have a great love for discussion pages, and I have poured my soul into the response I made here to you JimWae, even if I am rejected for minor (personal) issues.

Caveat: there is a point of diminishing returns on the value I personal grow in myself from such exchanges, whose archetype is the dying savior whose deed is, by the truth (subjective and objective) of their own worth, done. I am not that type because I can reach the point "I have suffered enough", and because I demand my life alive on Wikipedia, and because Wikipedia is a big place, and because I have many interests. The brain drain, the intelligent emigration of scholars from hostilities that no longer serve sanity is not possible on global forums where English is the globe's lingua franca. But it is possible for any article to have repulsive, hostile governments, at least for the while. It depends on who is trying hardest. It is harder to apologize. It is harder to change ones mind because another makes an ego-threat. Those who know find it easier just to let go can individuate a self-grown and genuine compassion on the innocent blissful ignorance of the lost. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that I have in any way made this in any way personal. I don't know anything about you, so I have focused my remarks on what you say & what is in the article. I think it best if we both try to keep the discussion on that level--JimWae (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cpiral

go to RfC? I think the guy has no clue what NOR means. But I am overwhelemd with the noleander case, sorry ----- add signature --- 20:27, 2 April 2011 User:Slrubenstein

Jim, I replied on my talk page. I think an RFC is the best way to start. You may wish to read the rest of my response on my talk page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Being and Time

I started a discussion on the Time talk page pertaining to the latest addition to the article (see edit histories on the article and talk pages). Also, I just came across this [10] and thought that you might find it interesting - it appears to be well sourced (click on the reference numbers). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A request

Jim, can I make a request. If you have problems with an edit I make to entry content that you do not intend to fix with an edit of your own can you please revert my edit entirely and start a discussion on the talk page, as opposed to communicating with me by way of edit summaries and tags that request quotes or suggest that things are too vague? I realize that you can of course edit in any manner you wish, which is why I'm asking. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your comment on my talk page. The article talk page is probably the best place to have this discussion. Can we move it there?Griswaldo (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Regarding your comment here. What if i remove the pantheist part? Deists (i think) are non-religious, because they believe in God without religion. Will the title still be inaccurate if i remove pantheist? Pass a Method talk 14:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Heidegger

Jim, It appears the addition pertaining to Heidegger is somewhat inaccurate. It seems to be an attempt to promote his book and his paper (of a similar title), which misses the point. I found a source which gives a good summation.I re-wrote this paragraph. Because philosophy is your area of expertise (besides computer software), perhaps you could review this source and other possible sources at google books [11]. I am sure you will notice the relevant explanations are much easier to understand than what I just removed. Also, there is no longer a need for a jousting match on the talk page. One more thing, please copy edit my entry using the source as a guide. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Below is some other peripherally related material:

Ecstatic, or ecstaties - involves the subject/object dichotomy (that must sound familiar), and more specifically "Human existence originally “stands outside” (ek-sistere) itself, integrally involved with the world in terms of which we ordinarily make sense of ourselves [12]. I found a similar description in the book, but I lost the page on Google books somehow. I will see if I can get it back.

I was just noticing that the source I use in the article also gives a description of ecstatic, or ecstasies. Once again there is a relationship to the word existence (pages 56, 57 and 59 [13]).

MH critiques humanity's drive to master the enviornment through calcualation and planning. "Heidegger's 1938 critique of Western humanity's drive toward the total mastery of the world through “calculating, planning, and breeding.” But more importantly for our purposes, such descriptions of humanity's drive to master the world completely through the coldly rational application of calculative reasoning also show that what Heidegger calls “subjectivism” is a conceptual and historical precursor to what he will soon call “enframing”.[14].

---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am busy with other things right now, so may not get to this right away. I think a good way to look at this is in terms of sequential access vs. random access. We are not stuck in sequential time. We are able to remember the past & project into the future - we have a kind of random access to temporality (without the time-travel bit) -- we can step out of (ecstasis) sequential time. Not terribly earth-shaking stuff, is it?--JimWae (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Very good Jim. You are correct - what you have written here is quite ordinary. I believe you have captured the essence of Heidegger (pertaining to time). Also there is no rush --- it is supposed to be whenever u have time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Saw your edit to the size of Rhode Island. Not a supercritical point to me, but, I was curious about it. US Geological Survey indicates Rhode Island is 1045 square miles [15]. Interestingly though, the USGS cites the Census Bureau for their stats. Census Bureau says the same, actually, 1044.93. Either way, I would have thought the USGS was the definitive source for this sort of thing, maybe not [16]. I've found other numbers too, though. You'd think it would be easier to get the answer. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

1045 is land area, 1214 includes inland waters. Larger numbers include US territorial waters. The Census Bureau is most interested in land area for density calculations. --JimWae (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

look at Pauline Maier bio?

So, after enjoying "Ratification" by Pauline Maier, I wrote an extension of the Constitution of the United States on conditions during the Articles and on the process of ratification, which seems to have stood scrutiny for a couple months. But I was appalled at the weak article summarizing an exemplary 50-year career. I ran with it, looking at WP criteria and other biographic articles. Now it’s been about a month.

The article got tagged as reading as a resume and being promotional. So, rather than surrendering to the first impulse to fight it, I tried to better the article. So far, on the discussion page it has pretty much been a monologue. The last section “Compare the comparable” about sums up where I am now.

Oh, and the wholesale deletion of pics on the basis that ideas for a professor's work cannot be illustrated in an online encyclopedia seems to me to be somehow misplaced. The page is not meant to be a dry list of books imported from a digitalized library card catalogue, is it? I thought one of the WP long term goals was to flesh out lists into articles. I tried to make some sort of annotation and link to the WP:ISBN pages. Each illustration is tied to the article in a concrete way.

So, two things. Would you take a look? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Time" edit

Jim, what is your opinion about this edit [17] on the Time article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Time"

Hi JimWae. I must admit, my formulation regarding Nagarjuna's refuation of the concept of time isn't convincing. The point is, that in the text he makes clear, that no phenomenon whatsoever can exist independently while everything is only dependently arisen. It's rather difficult to quote some lines regarding the concept of time out of this context and make the argument clear. But it's important to keep in mind that Nagarjuna does not make any supposition about causality in this text, and by no means metaphysical ones. The text ist strictly logical. Right now I don't know how to make this clear in the article. --Madden (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:time#Nagarjuna--JimWae (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Grumman (LIRR station) Reference

Are we allowed to used forums as a source? I see that you used one for the closing year of Grumman (LIRR station), so perhaps I can use the same one for the proposed merger of Deer Park (LIRR station), Pineaire (LIRR station) and Brentwood (LIRR station) that Brentwood residents fought against during the mid-1980's. ----DanTD (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I do have another - but it itself likely came from the forum --JimWae (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. But I still want better sources than this. ----DanTD (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybercobra for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits

Do you mind explaining why your edits seem so symmetrical with those of Cybercobra? The very quick edits on the same talk pages and articles seem a bit suspicious. Pass a Method talk 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to explain. We both just happened to be on-line at the same time. That does happen sometimes - just like we are both on-line now--JimWae (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay sorry for the bad faith. Maybe you two are long-lost twins :) Pass a Method talk 21:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cybercobra and Jim Wae are both reliable editors who edit according to guidelines and policies, and who in fact emphasize editing to guidelines and policies. A sockpuppet investigation pertaining to these two editors is absurd. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Date format changes

Please repair the date format changes you are making to Common Era. See MOS:DATEUNIFY. Also please note changing all date formats from one form to another is not appropriate without agreement on talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That was not by choice - that was the way checklinks put them in. This indicates original format for accessdate was YYYY-MM-DD. MOS:DATEUNIFY says "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD". --JimWae (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please specify the location of the tool so I can complain about this behavior. In this case it would appear you can get away with it, due to the 2007 version of the article. In other cases, bear in mind that you are responsible for the behavior of the tool, since you decided to use it. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. However, I do not consider following policy to be "getting away with it" --JimWae (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you investigated which usage was first consistently used before using checklinks, then I chose the phrase poorly. If you decided to use the tool first and only later found out the format was appropriate for the article, then you "got away with it". It really is too bad the MOS so often decides things on the basis of what format was first used consistently; it creates a lot of effort for editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

George Washington

I've fixed those two redlinks. The problem is that the redlinked-refs that remained in the article were referring to the deleted "ref names" as in (ref name ="xxx"). Shearonink (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew why they were red. There's a way to put named refs in the refs section, but when I did that the numbers went missing - probably because there was a notes section above it. I think they should still be named in case they need to be put back in the lede--JimWae (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

to day

Hello, JimWae. I wish you a good day. And me too. Therefore, let us try it friendly. - What's the problem? When I put it on discussion, I get no answer in between two weeks. Can be. When I give it to edit, I get it totally overwritten within one day. May be. When I try to correct this, I get it reverted same day (with ridiculous comment). Should not be without reason.

As I understood, celestial means except the earth. And celestial objects - instead of bodies - might mean galaxies (How could be a day for those?).
And one thing is unit and number. an other is what you try to measure. And there will - for ever - be a difference between a natural phenomenon like day (to which a lot of species refer) and the attempt to construct a reference system for timing for humans on earth.
And last not least, once more: One more: If you compare rotations and days of earth revolving about sun: there is one more.

If you would like to expulse my contribution a second time - I think this should be the moment to ask for a third opinion or to look for something like this or that or else. Otherwise you are invited to explain your New Theorie "De *evolutionibus .." about celestial and/or terrestrial motions. And then, I will be thinking about what it means "not to bite newcomers". (May be, there has been a reason, in this case, to start with what it is not). With my best wishes (see above)--R*elation (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't reply. Certainly, it takes time to look at this, that, else or other and another. And to think about.

May be, you are astonished: However, it could be, that we have common interests. Might be L. Wittgenstein, for example. In this case, let us have a look at two sentences:

p: "this is an entire rotation of the Earth"

q: "this rotation produces a solar day"

(or: "it could be experienced by someone resting at the same place on Earth's surface opportunely positioned and capable to see light, as well as able to be aware of possible alteration and, furthermore, is up to to remember those: that, if somewhat essentially for him has been changed by the influence of light directly radiated from a certain source, (for this purpose:) assumed as not moving by itself - he could think (and say): "somewhat that has been changed through sunlight" - thus, strongly simplified)

and then, let's have a look at their combination: p.q

> tlp 5.1241 > tlp 5.131 > tlp 5.143

In other words: If the Earth is revolving the Sun, it is not a little bit incorrect saying "one entire rotation makes a solar day".

But by no means possible to be true. --R*elation (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

After reading this several times, all I can conclude is that you either forgot to edit it or English is not the language you are best at. Please continue at Talk:Day--JimWae (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Being cryptic does not excuse trying to use Straw man argumentation to demonstrate contradiction in what the other is saying --JimWae (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks

yes, slap me :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Producer credit

JimWae: You deleted two names out of an article, saying "per sources" in the edit summary.[18] But there was no source on the line, you did not add a source, and further, your change was completely incorrect, since the song had three producers, but you deleted two of their names, and with a misleading edit summary. If a new editor did this, we'd call it vandalism, but you seem to have been around awhile, so I'm not giving you a vandalism warning. I've gone ahead and re-added the names, along with a couple sources, but am still concerned by your action. What's up? --El on ka 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I do regret it, but there were no sources, so I should better have summarized as "per NO sources". ALL the sources I saw had only SP. I have added a url, but I have to wonder if there's not a better source - newspapers are always putting quotes in people's mouths - in this case the quote even includes parentheses. --JimWae (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! Okay, thanks. We all make mistakes, consider it forgotten. BTW, looking through the whole batch of the BOC articles, there appears to be a bit of a battle going on behind the scenes. My guess is that many of the subjects are trying to use Wikipedia to perhaps give themselves more credit than they deserve. Especially regarding that cowbell! As you've seen, multiple people are claiming that they were the ones that played it. At least on the "idea" part though, things seem to be consistent. Or at least, I haven't seen any sources contradicting that it was Lucas's idea. Have you? --El on ka 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver

If you could wait for some 20 min and not edit that article I could try to fix the blue screen problems (started and saw your edit). Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just to be clear: It's not the BSOD, but there is some wiki-blue there --JimWae (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the under construction tag, isn't it?--JimWae (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know the reason - the parsing limits are far from reached and I guess this is something temporal with the servers not parsing well right now (I saw this before). I'm reducing some templates, and this should help in any case. Will leave a note when done. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the PURGE button does. Try just removing the under-construction template--JimWae (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There were fewer useless templates than I thought, and my edits reduced the template space by only about 5% - well, might be useful anyway. Sorry, I don't know the answer. My last edit removing the "under construction" template saved without the blue screen, but it was slow. One way to lighten up the article is to abandon some reference templates - for example, strip all non-pdf cite web and site news to bare url, and run reflinks with an option not to use templates. Materialscientist (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It must have been the construction template. It's OK now again for the first time after about 20 errors in last day--JimWae (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Social Media's role is culturally significant in documenting the riot, level of recorded detail, and unprecedented participation of social in a police investigation

Please advise how we can ensure that a "Social Media" section related to this wiki entry preserved this moment in history. I would like to understand why the entry was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.184.251 (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt it will remain. When it was a very short sub-section of the Aftermath section, some of it was moved to another sub-section. The sub-sections need better IDs. Btw, the VPD has reduced its emphasis on premeditated anarchists and said most of the idiots had no previous arrests--JimWae (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Revision

Hello User:JimWae, I support your revision of the article. However, do you think that the following sentence, which you flagged ("After the Russian Revolution of 1917, there was increased religious freedom for religious minorities, which lasted for a few years") is even necessary or relevant to the subject heading? I would support a removal of the uncited statement. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ISO 8000

JimWae, please tell me what exactly is the problem with normal dates in WP articles. Is the rationale behind ISO dates to save space? If so, I'm struggling to understand why it does this (much at all), and why such marginal space-saving is necessary. Thanks. Tony (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1> It's not ISO 8000 nor ISO 8601, it's YYYY-MM-DD. 2>While it does save space, that is of little concern to me - though saving screen space in columns is definitely a point in its favor. It's also the best format for sorting. 3> YYYY-MM-DD is an official date format in much of the world, and is accepted by the MOS. It is one of the THREE official date formats in Canada. As such, Canada has some national ties to that format (as well as national ties to the other two). Movements to remove YYYY-MM-DD from WP, besides often containing invalid arguments, seem to be a slight to an official Canadian format. Just the fact that you referred to the other formats as "normal" - as though YYYY-MM-DD was NOT normal - is somewhat insensitive to those of us who use this official Canadian format. 4> People should not be running scripts to remove this format on hundreds of articles (Canadian or not) where consensus has been to keep that format--JimWae (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

[note 2] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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 - 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)

Atheism definition incorrect

Moved to Talk:Atheism#Atheism definition incorrect on 2011-NOV-16 by --JimWae (talk) 21:30, 16 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 [as you know] 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 Wikipedia 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 ⁄ ³√7 = 3 ⁄ ³√7 x (³√7 ⁄ ³√7) x (³√7 ⁄ ³√7) = 3 ³√7² ⁄ 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Atheism". Thank you. --u n☯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)

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)