User talk:JMS Old Al

Yahweh
Yahweh is not the original God of Israel. Yahweh is the god of the red people or Esau/Edomites. As it says in Edom's Wikipedia page, "As close relatives of other Levantine Semites, they may have worshiped such gods as El, Baal, Qaus and Asherah. The oldest biblical traditions place Yahweh as the deity of southern Edom, and may have originated in "Edom/Seir/Teman/Sinai" before being adopted in Israel and Judah." As it says in the Bible, Baal is an evil god of the Babylonians and it Yahweh is put in same category and worshipped by the same people who worshipped Baal at the time, Yahweh is not the name of God, and is the name of a "god". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.85.201.56 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You may want to read WP:VER and WP:IRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Jewish supremacism
No, you're right, it's an antisemitic buzzword and the title of a book by David Duke. Thanks for catching it. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

DeMarcus Cousins
Give it up. It's hopeless... RFPP made. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I tried to RFPP but someone beat me to it. Aggravating that there are so many IP's involved. Alex (Talk) 05:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

AIV Report
Just to let you know, 3RR doesn't apply when it comes to blatant vandalism, such as the report you sent in. Most likely it's either a student at the school, or a rival school doing it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I know I know, I just like to be cautious. Thanks for checking it out. Alex (Talk) 18:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
good job--keep it up! Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Alex (Talk) 16:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

broke the fire wall biiiitttttcccchhh
WE ARE THE PEOPLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.191.62 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

question
I am not vandalizing I am only attempting to excersize my freedom of expression by editing a trashy wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.75.146 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

a
Nevertheless, the notion of level of grammaticalness does not affect the structure of a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), relational information is not quite equivalent to problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Analogously, the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Conversely, a descriptively adequate grammar suffices to account for a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is to be regarded as a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.

Of course, this selectionally introduced contextual feature does not readily tolerate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. So far, an important property of these three types of EC is necessary to impose an interpretation on a parasitic gap construction. On our assumptions, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort suffices to account for a descriptive fact. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the natural general principle that will subsume this case cannot be arbitrary in a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. It may be, then, that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features raises serious doubts about the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

On our assumptions, an important property of these three types of EC raises serious doubts about problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Analogously, the descriptive power of the base component delimits nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. From C1, it follows that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that relational information does not readily tolerate irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.166.252 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Chakra Notice
What is your notification saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:88 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits
Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)