User talk:JimWae/Archives/2009

No Idea why I got this one:

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Re: atheism mood
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I answered there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got your new message to me. Thanks! I've answered at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Look here --JimWae (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Episcopal polity
Does it still interest you? If so, you may wish to assist with Talk: Episcopal polity --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New York
I like your new wording. Thank you. I just didnt like the article saying that the USPS and census bureau "recognized" hamlets or gave some hamlets boundaries. I do suggest putting in wording that sometimes the CDP or ZIP code for one hamlet may include one or more other hamlets as well. Latham, New York is a hamlet which lends its name to a ZIP code that includes at least 3 or 4 other hamlets, and this is just one such example that can be put in the article. I would love to hear your opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the problem did seem to be with the word "recognize". It seems obvious now, but stating that they have a name was missing. There are post offices & school districts that may include 5 or more hamlets - and sometimes only parts of them. I am thinking of Oyster Bay, but examples abound. I do not think giving a specific example helps the general reader, tho'. It is really messy on LI, and many people are not aware that a named place may have boundaries defined 4 or 5 different ways--JimWae (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, specific examples already have proliferated waaay too much in the article, it seems everyone wants a locale from their neck of the woods as an example in each section, maybe we should start looking into pruning back examples from the article, or come up with a guideline by concensus on the talk page as to what if any examples should be put in. The article definitely should make clear what you just said in your comment that a name used for a hamlet may have boundaries defined differently if the name is used by a school district, fire district, etc. A hamlet is a named place, but not all named places are hamlets is my opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The post office does, however, have jurisdiction to recognize a place name for the purposes of postal delivery. For decades before Old Bethpage had its "own" post office, the post office recognized "Old Bethpage" as a postal address, but its mail went through the Plainview Post Office. When ZIP codes first came along, Old Bethpage had its own zip code - even though it still had no post office--JimWae (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Many town(ship)s list their hamlets on their website --JimWae (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the concern that all this delving into ZIP codes and post office names gets way off track in the article about Administrative divisions of New York, maybe I'm being nit-picky but I see a distinction between "of" NY and "in" NY. Hamlets arent admin. divisions either but at least they are sometimes mentioned individually in NY law, plus schools, fire districts, etc are districts under the umbrella of the state. Whereas USPS really doesnt "administer" anything for the state and ZIP codes in NY arent any different than in any other state. We could delve into FBI field office jurisdictions, federal court and appellate court jurisdictions, and various other such things too. And a further question- in (on?) Long Island what is the prefered way of referring to towns? In the Capital District no one uses the term township, only towns, and I know in the state constitution and state laws the term town is used but if there are sections of the state where township is commonly used that should be mentioned, but I'm of the mindset that the legal term town should be exclusively used otherwise throughout the article. I know since I came to Missouri to do my graduate work at MU if you say township out here they assume you are talking about a township by their definition which is nothing more than a voting precinct and can sometimes include portions of a city, whereas town is nothing more to them than a common-use term for a built-up area as opposed to the countryside (ie-any town, village, or city is a "town"; "I'm leaving the farm Ma to go live in town"). Do you have an opinion?Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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


 * [earlier text cut] I replied on the article talk page.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages are for topics that concern mostly only those users. Article talk pages are for talking about article content. Continue this only on article talk page --JimWae (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the discussion. I replied again and answered your recent request for more info..--Dchmelik (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

jesus page
For Jesus, under occupation, you have: itinerant preacher, healer. This is some of the stuff he did, but these aren't occupations. Jesus's occupation was as a Carpenter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.192.73 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not MY article - so I don't have anything there. Modern scholarship suggests "manual laborer" as a better translation - but he seems to have given that up - and been supported by others (eg Mary Magdalene). Anyway: What was he most importantly occupied with during his "mission"? - teaching & healing, no? --JimWae (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Joseph was a carpenter, but that doesn't mean that's what He was. Lots of manual laborers supported sons who went into the rabbinate; and still do. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Same translation goes for Joseph - construction worker or laborer --JimWae (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation
Yes, what ends up translated as "carpenter" was at the time actually closer to construction worker than table-maker. I think most people understand "occupation" to denote the way a person makes a living: it's a profession, job, or career. There is another use which is equivalent to "pasttime", but that is not how the word is used in biographical summaries. The fact that his energies were dedicated to the spiritual mission of teach and healing would indicate that he had abandoned any occupation, and was in fact "unemployed". This is probably even more accurate than calling him a carpenter, and it could make sense to drop the "occupation" line completely. For teaching and healing to be considered occupations, I suppose those activities would need to take place at a regular time and place (e.g. school or clinic) and for compensation. Coming upon a stranger during a stroll and rubbing mud in their eyes doesn't seem to meet these criteria. Assuming these arguments are persuasive, whose in charge of modifying the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.192.73 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bring it up at Talk:Jesus if you want to pursue this - I, however, do not think it is important that it be changed. I think present text conveys some information as it is, and removing it is not a priority for me. I would support adding more detail about this in the article itself, though. --JimWae (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fillmore
Since he was born among those mountains, I don't think he qualifies as born west of them. It's a narrow semantic distinction, but an important one to this descendant of both the indigenes and the invaders. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The waters flow west from there. Saying Lincoln was first is misleading oversimplification. I wonder why would it be important to say anything about this - I guess it's to point to AL's frontier upbringing. Hardin might also be considered "in" the mountains -- I've never been there but googlemaps says the elevation rises to east & sinks to west --JimWae (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the Lincoln Farm on googleearth - it's pretty flat, but there seem to be elevations in all directions --JimWae (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Indiana in the American Civil War
This article is now up for FA; I think it fails Raul's Razor:  An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. I would like your opinion; please read it, and then comment at its FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No religious test clause
Your remarks on Pennsylvania struck the right balance between the flatly incorrect previous version and my inelegant solution of just removing PA entirely. Nicely done. MarritzN (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cumyow being the first
My point with that edit was that in the three years from the onset of Chinese immigration in 1858 to his birth in 1861 there were c.10,000 Chinese men in the colony and no Chinese women; certainly they didn't remain celibate, or not all of them did, and it's a tradition in Indian families in many areas that some of them have Chinese blood. Similarly in the case of the building of the North West America at Nootka Sound in the late 1780s there are traditions that some of them stayed on and moved in with the Indians, fathering children. These are not recorded in the 1881 census because they were "illegitimate" and also unidentified, being seen as a part of the Indian population. Cumyow is certainly the first known as the offspring of a recognized marriage, and if I recall correctly his mother was the first Chinese woman to arrive whose name was known (it goes unrecorded, but the likelihood that some of the prostitutes that arrived with gold-seekers from California may have been Chinese, and the shiploads that came in from China may have brought one or two, though specifics remain unknown, and the likelihood that prostitutes did not bring pregnancies to term is also quite likely - pregnanacy being bad for business...). So, he is certainly the first person of Chinese ancestry whose name is known, and whose birth was registered, and he is certainly the first known both of whose parents were Chinese, but the first person of Chinese ancestry is much harder to prove, given both circu7mstantial evidence and oral tradition that Chinese miners, and maybe shipbuilders, may have sired children with Indian women.Skookum1 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Cumyow article could be significantly enriched by inclusino of materials on some of the cases he participated in, and some of the cross-country adventures iimplicit with travelling with the circuit court, i.e. "glimpses of period life" and his personal relationships with non-Chinese would give the article some other context than being only a Chinese-Canadian political memorial, which is its current flavour. Those were interesting times, he was an interesting character in them, more about that should be found, not just relating his life story in terms of ethno-racial poiltics.Skookum1 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to your changes. The original claim was probably based on the 1923 list. The census lends further support to the claim. I have actually found a census entry supporting an earlier Chinese birth in Canada in 1851 - but it is questionable whether the info was accurately entered--JimWae (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Since you are interested in Pomona College you might want to check out this AfD of a professor's bio: Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion in the United States
I was forced to revert one of your edits, and there was not enough space in the box for explanation. --Frank.trampe (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Both Presidents Adams were Unitarian . For more information, see their Wikipedia pages.
 * 2) Thomas Jefferson stated very directly that he was content to be a Unitarian by himself and even looked into the possibility of bringing a Unitarian minister to his neighbourhood . ( « The population of my neighborhood is too slender and is too much divided into sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be content to be a Unitarian by myself, although I know there are many around me who would become so if once they heard the questions fairly stated. » ) See his Wikipedia page for more information.
 * 3) Date reformatting under the date de-linking policy is currently the subject of an injunction by the Arbitration Committee . See Requests for arbitration/Date_delinking.


 * It is quite possible to be both a Unitarian AND a Deist. Unitarianism was formed both in England & USA under the strong influence of Deistic ideas. Please see Thomas Jefferson and religion and Religious affiliations of United States Presidents. Jefferson said he was many things. It is not clear that TJ saying he must "be content to be a Unitarian by myself" was anything more than saying he denied the Trinity and wished he could attend services where others agreed. He never "became a Unitarian", though he might have had there been a church for him to attend. Saying he "became a Unitarian" is too definite a conclusion for his situation. I will revisit & revise the article again when I have more time --JimWae (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Having done much research on the topic, I am familiàr with the meanings of the terms . At Jefferson's time , Unitariànism strongly connoted an adherence to Jesus's teachings . Although Deìsm in its general form supercedes Unitariànism , its generally accepted meaning implies much less Christiàn focus than Unitariànism . Considering that Jefferson compiled a book of Jesus's teachings , called Jesus the world's greatest teacher , and corresponded frequently with a Unitariàn scholar , his claim that he was Unitariàn at that point does not stand alone . Although he certainly transitioned through many belief systems , I consider Unitariànism to be the culmination of his religious development . Even if Deìst correctly describes Jefferson , it is common practice to employ the most specific term possible when identifying one's religious beliefs . For example , rather than call Ronald Reagan a Theìst , or a Christiàn , or a Trinitariàn , we call him a Presbyteriàn . Unitariànism is the most specific term available for Jefferson's belief in a single personal God , his trust in reason as a tool for discovering God's truth , and his respect for Jesus as the world's greatest teacher . I believe that this is why Jefferson chose the term . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of George Washington
I have done a GA Reassessment of the George Washington article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need work on referencing. My review is here. I am notifying you as the primary editor that this article is on hold for a week pending work that needs to be done. I don't think it will require too much to satisfy the GA Criteria and I sincerely hope that someone will step forward and take this project on. It would be a shame to delist what is in all senses but one, a good article. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Extrabreaks
I responded here. I won't have a chance to fix it for at least a day, but I will get to it. Thanks for your feedback. Plastikspork (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Article:Time
WHATS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THESE LINES YOU BLOODY FOOL??? """Time is nothing but the Imaginary Frame of Events. Or it can be said as the fourth Dimension of Matter.For example: what was a seed in the past, now is a grown up tree , which will be a Furniture in the future. Here, height,length, width changes with time. Time started into nowhere and ends into nowhere."""

YOU THINK THAT WIKIPEDIA IS YOUR DAD'S OWN PROPERTY ??? YOU MODERATORS ARE DICK PEOPLE. I AM NOT VANDALIZING, GOT IT ? IF YOU ERASE IT I WILL TAKE IT AS PERSONAL AND KILL YOU ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.228.77 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are violating numerous wikipedia policies in threatening me in that way - plus the content you added was misplaced & unsourced --JimWae (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's your new fan, Jim? :) Sunray (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver article needs help
Did you know that Vancouver may lose FA status? The article was listed for FAR on June 18 but there wasn't much response. It has since been listed as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. I am contacting you because you are one of the top ten editors of the article by number of edits. Would you be willing to work on improving the article? If so, you may wish to comment on the review page and join the discussion on the talk page here. Sunray (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to be pretty busy the next few weeks, but will look in when I can. Cheers, --JimWae (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever assistance you can give would be great. As a fellow veteran, I have come to value your editing expertise. One thing that might be most helpful would be for you to comment on the FAR page. Sunray (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the complaints seem to be about the demographic section. That section is a problem in just about every city article. Every ethnicity & nationality in the world could end up in such a section. I think we should restrict it to identifiable neighborhoods - Commercial Drive, ChinaTown, etc. The request for citation for bilingual street signs seems unnecessary - but a photo of one or two should satisfy whoever is so concerned about that. --JimWae (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in the lede about rankings is long and, frankly, boring - it needs to be cut to a bare minimum. The Olympics can go with industry paragraph. --JimWae (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks for weighing in on the talk page and FAR page. Sunray (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM
Why somebody cancelled the polite edit (Usa superpower anymore) about the article USA and nobody stopped him? Can you stop the vandals? Thanks.151.60.117.153 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a guy offending me.His name is DcGeist or similar.Why don't you stop him?151.60.118.161 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a guy a such TastyCakes that is attacking me without a sense...when YOU defend me? Are YOU alive or you're disappeared July the 4th?Ecce lux...is more famous "Ecce homo"...i know latin very well...also history,geography,financials and so on..knowledge is my life...151.60.117.148 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a life outside wikipedia, have been busy, and still am. You will need to provide an administrator with the name of the article and the date and time of edits that have been reverted. Content disputes are not vandalism & I am not an administrator --JimWae (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the USA's debts are to banks, not to other countries. You will be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the EU qualifies as a superpower, especally with English not being your first language--JimWae (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of give me an answer why didn't you stop this guy that attacked me also by cancelling my edit?If english is your first language it's a disaster because you wrote especally instead of especially..errata corrige.About EU all EU peple know EU is a superpower.It's the first political and economical being in the world.I'm not able to add citations (there thousands and thousand of main citations about EU as leader superpower or better first power,the last true super pwer has been British Empire).That's why i don't add.The day that i'll be able i want to laugh. I talk of US global debt that is pvate+public debt,in a word the whole US debt to pay.I understand that you've no idea of things.151.60.119.253 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you think you have a right to demand things from me? --JimWae (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"What makes you think" isn't at all english.May be i found a refree of english Wikipedia that doesn't speak english.Are the other refrees prepared like him in the subjects that i face?I don't understand your english.Sorry.151.60.119.253 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DACA_en-GBUS336US336&q=%22what+makes+you+think%22 - over one million hits. Please close the door on your way out. --JimWae (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

YES my "english" speaker and dux! You are very useful!151.60.119.41 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

sun & moon
Máni, Sól (Sun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But 1>it cannot be determined that the day of the week is named after the god rather than the celestial body - and 2>SUNday is not Norse, nor is MONday--JimWae (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enuf. (2) they are just english translations of the norse names, like twig = tuesday. But (1) even tho it's likely that they named mon/sunday after gods just like they did with the rest of the days, you're right that it isnt conclusive if its the deities or space objects, or at least i dont think it's worthwhile researching to find out if that is so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thursday can rightly be attributed to Thor, as can a few others be seen t have come from the Norse language. However, I see no evidence Sunday & Monday can be attributed to Norse language at all, with SUN & MOON long being English words. At best, which is not much, did the Norse call those days Solday & Maniday? Not that it matters much (since SUNday is entirely English), Sol is also Latin. --JimWae (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Next stop: Week-day names --JimWae (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The English noun Sunday derived sometime before 1250 from sunedai, which itself developed from Old English (before 700) Sunnandæg (literally meaning "day of the sun")"
 * and
 * "Sól (Old Norse "Sun"[1]) or Sunna (Old High German "Sun") is the Sun personified in Germanic mythology."
 * Someone's put pics of the sun/moon gods on the sunday/monday wiki pages. Wiktionary is pretty good for the etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Walt Whitman
Nice work on clarifying the changing opinions of Walt Whitman and abolitionism. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try to do some more on this. Right now the lede & the section actually contradict each other on the sequence. I am beginnig to doubt he ever turned against abolition after 1848. Even some of the sources have completely ignored the chronology, in favour of presenting the view they want to. I had barely read anything by (except for a few short poems) or about him until this week, in checking this article--JimWae (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read about four biographies of him and all the scholars find ways to complicate his stance on the slavery question. Some quotes we have from him make it clear that he was not a fan of abolitionism - even if, at times, he was anti-slavery. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is something on WW & slavery: http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/current/encyclopedia/entry_51.html --JimWae (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reason
Hi. I notice that you made a couple of edits to The Age of Reason. I have absolutely no problem with those edits, but I'd like to just mention some background. The article ws largely written some time ago by User:Awadewit, and it reached FA status. Recently one or two people, including me, have raised points of criticism. Awadewit has, understandably, defended the existing text. This has led to lively discussions on the talk page, but by keeping it there we have avoided edit-warring. There are still issues outstanding, but Awadewit has had some real-life demands on her time and has asked to put things on hold for a couple of weeks, which is reasonable enough. As you seem to have an interest in and understanding of this topic, we'd welcome your involvement, but if that's what you want, could I ask you to have a good look at the talk page, so that you know what we've been arguing about, and not to update the article itself without getting agreement there first, and not for the next two weeks in any case. I hope you agree that this is reasonable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Telescope Hill Location
Hey there, I saw your recent edit to the Bald Hill article, and invite your input on this issue here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bald_Hill_(Farmingville,_New_York) thanks! --Neighborhoodpalmreader (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification
Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinatown overburden
Forgive me for making assumptions off your username, JimWae, as you may not even be Chinese, maybe Korean, and maybe neither; your name came to mind when cleaning up Chinatown this morning as an experienced editor who might know where to take the discussion at Talk:Chinatown. Which essentially is about reduplication of content across a "suite" of redundant articles, and the use of those articles for promotional/hype reasons and bad citations, amateurish content, bragging etc.. And also the use of such articles as "directory" articles as to where to shop, and the juxtaposition of the term "Chinatown" to mean anywhere with a concentration of Chinese residents/businesses and or a reason to discuss immigration figures in a region. A massive merge/cleanup is needed, with some article titles like "chinatown patterns" needing total ditching. WP:China and WP:Ethnic groups don't seem to be likely places to discuss this, given that most contributors are adding to the problems rather than solving them. Is there something like an AfD-type area for resolution of complex content/redundancy and related issues like this? Koreatown and its child articles have similar, or even worse problems, though without the multiple-article problem (so far).Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in responding. I have little special knowledge in this area beyond what I have done in genealogical research of my wife's family. I tend to agree with what you said, but have plenty of other articles & projects to deal with right now. Perhaps I can come back to this later. --JimWae (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that the Chinatown article should not have a section devoted to History of Chinatowns by area. If each area is to have a subheading included in the general article, it should be more generalized and less specific than the history of each area, while still being very concise --JimWae (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in the United States
The anon editor involved in the current discussion appealed to me for help in placing his material in the article. This does appear to be a good faith effort on the editor's part. The references provided and the topic addressed has the potential for being valuable in several areas of the encyclopedia. I offered the editor some advice (on my talk page and the IP address), but he/she doesn't appear to be the concensus type. If you have some ideas about how we can help the editor become productive, please feel free to chime in. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Neoslavery
You're right and you're wrong, JimWae. Coal and lumber companies and plantation owners did not "own" convicts per se--they leased them from counties and states. They also traded them among themselves, just as antebellum slaveholders bought and sold antebellum slaves (despite the fact that postbellum laws prohibited such trading). Furthermore, the lease was not the only form of neoslavery. At least two others existed. One of which was peonage (aka debt slavery, or the forcing of a person to labor to pay off debts (most of which were, in fact, spurious)). And the other of which was pure chattel slavery, without any trappings of crime or debt. More specifically, a significant percentage of so-called "prisoners" held by private enterprises in the New South had never been convicted of anything, and were owned body and soul until death.

In any case, "ownership" is not a sine qua non of slavery (though it is, by definition, a necessary element of CHATTEL slavery). Slavery is forced labor. There is absolutely no question that convicts, debtors, and people who were neither convicts nor debtors were forced to labor in the New South following the Thirteenth Amendment. It is equally clear that many, if not most, so-called "convicts" were either (a) afforded no due process and so were not properly found guilty of anything, (b) not convicted of anything worse than, e.g., talking loudly in the presence of white women, or (c) both. In short, slavery very obviously and openly existed in the South at least up until World War II.

One can try to minimize this by saying that chattel slavery, for the most part, ended with the Civil War. But to do that is to narrow the definition of slavery far too far. (It's worth noting here that the conditions that debt slaves and so-called "convicts" labored under were far worse than those typical of antebellum slavery. See, e.g., Mary Ellen Curtin, Black Prisoners and Their World, Alabama, 1865-1900 (University Press of Virginia 2000).) 68.81.70.80 (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


 * With regard to phenomenology, I find it helpful to think about it in the following way: Divide knowledge into three components: (1) the subject who knows; (2) the mental image in the subject's brain; and (3) the external object that is known. Phenomenology tries to ignore (1) and (3). It focuses on (2) as that which is actually known. Changing topic: Don't apologize for talking about yourself in the third person. Henry Adams did it in his autobiography with excellent result.Lestrade (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Canada at FAR
nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

San Luis Obispo
Sorry about reverting your info. I figured it was a mistake because:

"Southwest of the town center" - Technically true, but odd way of describing the area. I would have gone with the "Madonna Rd area" or something

"several" - My guess is that you mean Irish Hills, SLO Promenade, and Madonna Plaza. Developed? I guess they all have developed but in different ways. i wouldn't group them together like that

"large shopping malls" - there are no malls in SLO. they are "plazas" or "centers". And Irish hills and SLO promenade aren't "large" by Madonna Plaza standards (Madonna = 320,000 sq/f, Irish = 140,000 sq/ft, Promenade=123,000 sq/f).

"since 2003" - fairly vague, although correct with Irish Hills. Staples moved to the promenade in 2001, Best Buy and Borders opened at Madonna in 2002.

I suspect the statement could apply to several cities and still been fairly accurate. Plus you put a random "ethnic origins of canada" URL as your edit summary. All of this combined with no references made it seem suspicious.

I appreciate you contributing to the page and agree with you that more needs to be written about how these new and improved shopping centers are affecting the city, especially how it has affected SLO's jewel of a downtown. I just wanted to let you know why I attempted to revert it. Thanks!C5mjohn (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

giving credit to/for
Just want to say thanks for correcting that; I misunderstood the meaning in that sentence (in the deism article). Tommy  talk  01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Date format
Hi. Tx for your comments on the YYYY-MM-DD proposal (waves from other side of argument). Our of curiosity, you say that two have already started removing YYYY-MM-DD. I was unaware of that, though I am aware of bots (certainly) rampantly doing the reverse (including a bot of at least one commentator). And also of a bot and a commentator "fixing" the examples I gave of editors using what appears to be a YYYY-DD-MM format. Which editors are those? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 & 1 again & 2. Note inconsistency in first one --JimWae (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to hate dates.
 * Not sure about the what the original state of play was in the first article, but is that part of the issue there? It does seem to at times have also suffered from format inconsistency.  Glancing at the second article, the glaring error in format that grabbed me was the page numbers.  185–6 is not appropriate I believe, while 185-86 is (though I could be wrong -- this is off the top of my head).
 * BTW -- did you notice where I pointed out errors in date format (this is an aside) where Wiki editors input a YYYY-DD-MM format, and the result was a colleague waving at me from the other camp "fixing" those, so that anyone looking at the examples (without looking into the edit histories) would not see any support for my point in them. Funny what people do, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to hate the heat, rather than light that it generates. I think though that it will all be resolved in a year or so. I did a scan of invalid ISO dates and there are shedloads. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Incidentally I have suggested hiding accessdate and making some other changes over at Cite. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Words of wisdom. And yes -- I support your suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're a cool editor
Dude you're a cool editor! Joshua D. D&#39;Lima (R) Texas (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Have we crossed paths yet? If not, welcome! --JimWae (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

theism
When you say that theism does not have to be monotheism you are correct but the vast majority of theists are nonetheless monotheists. As a philosophy graduate you should still know that theism is not simply the belief in deity but a doctrine of the deity's relationship to the creation. There is a very long article on deism in Wikipedia but this article on theism is woefully inadequate as an acceptable explication of the doctrine of theism. If you think I am being perverse in my claim that theism refers in the main to a species of monotheism then I beg you to look in the Encyclopedia Brittanica under the entry 'Theism'. Then you may understand that far from writing a personal essay I am merely presenting a normal account of theism. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Present it clearly as the specific sense, after the other terms are explained, and we will have less (though still some) to disagree about. JimWae (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Obviously I haven't gotten my meaning across. If you would be so kind as to go to your local public library and have a look in the Encyclopedia Brittannica you will find the following:


 * "Theism


 * The view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms.


 * Theism's view of God can be clarified by contrasting it with that of deism, of pantheism, and of mysticism. Deism closely resembles theism; but for the deist, God is not involved in the world in the same personal way. He has made it, so to speak, or set the laws of it—and to that extent he sustains it in being. But subject to this final and somewhat remote control, God, as the deist sees him, allows the world to continue in its own way. This view simplifies some problems, especially those that arise from the scientific account of the world: one does not have to allow for any factor that cannot be handled and understood in the ordinary way. God is in the shadows or beyond; and, though men may still in some way centre their lives upon him, this calls for no radical adjustment at the human or finite level. The deist proceeds, for most purposes at least, as if there were no God—or only an absent one; and this approach is especially true of man's understanding of the world. This is why deism appealed so much to thinkers in the time of the first triumphs of modern science. They could indeed allow for God, but they had “no need of that hypothesis” in science or in their normal account of things. Religion, being wholly superadded, was significant only in a manner that involved little else in the world or in the way man lives. The theist, on the other hand, questions this view and seeks in various ways (as noted below) to bring man's relation to God into closer involvement with the way he understands himself and the world around him.


 * Theism also sharply contrasts with pantheism, which identifies God with all that there is; and with various forms of monism, which regards all finite things as parts, modes, limitations, or appearances of some one ultimate Being, which is all that there is. Some types of absolute Idealism, a philosophy of all-pervading Mind, while regarding every finite thing as comprising some limitation of the one whole of Being, seek also to retain the theistic element in their view of the world; and they do this normally—as in the works of A.E. Taylor, Andrew Pringle-Pattison, or G.F. Stout—by stressing the role of unifying finite centres, such as self-conscious human beings, in the way the universe as a whole functions. But there is no recognition here of the finality of what is technically known as “the distinctness of persons.” The theist, by contrast, considers the world to be quite distinct from its Author or Creator, human life being thus in no sense strictly the life of God, while also making room for a peculiarly intimate involvement of God in the world and in human life." copyright The Encyclopedia Brittannica 2009


 * As such, most of the information in the current article is tangential. Polytheism, Pantheism - even Monotheism all this information is superfluous and belongs in other articles. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that give the more general definition. Two are given in the article. Are you proposing that we just ignore the more general meaning? How could we be NPOV if we do that? --JimWae (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what your sources are, Jim. I'm using the most authoritative sources available to me. To add to the ones already provided, here is the current entry from the Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth Edition 2008:
 * Theism.


 * In theology and philosophy, the belief in a personal God. It is opposed to atheism and agnosticism and is to be distinguished from pantheism and deism. Unlike pantheists, theists do not hold God to be identical to the universe. Like deists, they believe that God created the universe and transcends it; unlike the deists, they hold that God involves himself in human affairs. For a summary of the arguments that support theism, see God.


 * The most common meaning of the word theism is actually what you call the 'specific meaning'. That is actually the general meaning. I'm not suggesting we ignore the various forms of belief in God that have existed historically or cross-culturally (Polytheism, Pantheism etc) only that Theism as it is understood today refers to a particular monotheistic conception of God as both transcendant and immanent that is contrasted with Deism. That should be the main focus of this article. The list of possible varieties of belief in God can stay but since they are not the main topic of the article they should exist in a less prominent form. They are somewhat tangential. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, TWO are already given -- in the first sentence--JimWae (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification of request for formal mediation on Zeno's Paradoxes
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Zeno's_paradoxes has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Zeno's_paradoxes and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Steaphen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

Agnosticism ahoy
Hey Jim, I notice we are both working on agnosticism. What do you think of the article? And my proposed edits? Would you want to collaborate or anything? (I'm pretty new here ... and actually am kind of feeling lost! I do like the cut of your jib, by the way.) Dennis Boocho (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dennis, Yes, I generally like the changes you have made & the proposal to reduce the direct quotes -- as long as the new text is not just a rephrasing of about the same length, in which case the direct quotes would carry more weight. I don't think the Rigveda is clearly about agnosticism, tho' - it is about not knowing one thing (how the universe was created) --JimWae (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I included it because I remember, back in college (I was religious studies) my Hinduism professor gave it a lot of weight as an early agnostic text. And I was worried the article comes off as a little Eurocentric. But I will try to find better sources to support its notability. (Unfortunately I've misplaced a lot of my old textbooks...) What do you think about the strong/weak, etc agnosticism? Dennis Boocho (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln
Do you intend to do this with all the articles you edit? Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but some have so many refs and multi-refs that it becomes more of a chore to find them than it does to add the one character. The article is only about 170 chars longer than it would be otherwise -- worth it for the sake of editors sake, I'd say. It also ensures the space after the ref is not omitted --JimWae (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Vancouver
- JimWae, you voted to not delist on the FAR for Vancouver. Unfortunately it was delisted. If you're around, we sure could use your help on revamping the article to get it ready for another nomination. We'd like to clean it up a bit before we do. Mkdw talk 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Metro Vancouver
The edits I made to the Metro Vancouver page corrected information and accurately explained what "Metro Vancouver" is. You undid my edits at the expense of accuracy. Please note that I work as Legal Counsel for the Greater Vancouver Regional District so I have an intimate understanding of Metro Vancouver's legal status. Lmstokes (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but you removed wikilinks and refs. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia & nobody checks for credentials. Some of what you wrote appears to be good, some was far too detailed for the introduction, some read like a legal contract - and you did not include any edit summary when you made all those changes. I'd suggest adding just a bit at a time - and not all to the introduction--JimWae (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas
Hi, merry Christmas and happy holidays to you and yours. I'm wondering if you could come and join recent discussion at Talk:Christmas, where there is a dispute about the leading sentence. I am in favor of keeping the opening as "Christmas is a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus", but another user has insisted on changing this to "Christmas is a holiday that, in Christianity, commemorates the birth of Jesus". Please voice your opinion about which you prefer (or any alternatives) at the talk page. Thanks for your participation in this. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 19:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Zeno editing
Sorry for reverting your changes too, but it seemed cleaner to just go back to the version as it was before Steaphen started editing. Ansgarf (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I try to limit my reverting to one per day, so I just deleted the new edit about sigma addition, rather than reverting to a previous edition. I think we want to acknowledge that there are mathematical ways, not involving calculus, to approach the paradoxes. With 4th-5th grade math we can calculate a value at which Achilles will have already passed the tortoise, and using 9th grade (or so) algebra we can arrive at a more precise time when he actually catches the tortoise. However, it seems we cannot get agreement on how to word it. It would not even matter if we said "an approximate value", because saying Achilles passes the tortoise is enough to present a non-Zeno view. We can even write an algebraic formula for calculating the point of meeting. However, Zeno need only reply that one cannot assume motion is possible (which is what saying each participant has a quantifiable speed does), to prove that motion is possible --JimWae (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, normal algebra does the job as well. And what the the user who changed the entire paragraph as far as I can see meant was not that the 1-1 correspondence meant that it solves the paradox. He meant simply, that the fact that the geometric series converges is not a theorem of calculus, but that it is sufficient to use what he called sigma addition. Calculus is overkill, but I somehow gave up to point to the difference between continuous uncountable real numbers of calculus, and the countable rational numbers used by Zeno.
 * I actually don't think that it would be wrong to say that the calculated position of real tortoises and runners will only be approximately correct. But the calculation itself is exact and QM is if at all an irrelevant factor. And I don't know why we should add "approximate" in the article on Zeno, and not in any other article. The Eiffel tower is also just approximately 341 meter high. And actual free falling objects will on fall with approximately $$1/2 g t^2$$. But I said that it in my mediation statement. I have a few changes I'd like to make as well, mostly in the wording of the article, to bring out the different aspects clearer. But, I rather wait. Ansgarf (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Ansgarf (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)