User talk:JimWae/Archives/2012

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

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

CSA.GIF International boundary POV

 * Per the Golbez and JimWae discussion concerning the International boundary. See the 6-color palette section
 * The International boundary might be replaced with another line font, say, solid (thinner than international) line on the Confederate side, dotted line on the Union side -_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-_, or something.The universal descriptor could be
 * "Boundary claimed by the Confederate States of America, [month] 1861 - April 1865."
 * the border changing with each new Admitted to Confederacy. That would put WV on the south of the line, but as of March 4, 1863, WV would stay #4 color (CSA-with-U.S. Representatives, same color as USA-with-C.S. Representatives) and the geopolitical change would show visually because  #3 color would obtain to VA (CSA, no U.S. representatives).  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A (somewhat late) reply
Hi Jim, Just letting you know that I replied to your comments on User talk:DASHBot/Dead Links  Tim  1357  talk  23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I did not delete, I edited. You gave only one source & editorialized from there. The new sentences cover the topic without WP:UNDUE weight--JimWae (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You did notice that 2 other editors already had problems with what you wrote, yes? --JimWae (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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


 * This editor is now blocked as a sockpuppet of . Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Long Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Nassau County and Suffolk County


 * Thomas Powell (1641–1722) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Nassau County and Suffolk County

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

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


 * I believe you have misunderstood the issue. My edits are not aimed to have 2 different formats for retrieved dates. On the contrary, my aim is to keep them consistent. Your edit to Litre actually made them inconsistent again--JimWae (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of WP:DATEUNIFY is to have formats consistent within an article, not within just each single reference. At present, policy allows accessdates to retain YYYY-MM-DD format, making two the maximum # of formats with an article (apart from any in direct quotes), not three--JimWae (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

thomas powell 1641-1721
Hi jim,i have a few questions.i have recently put info on the thomas powell site,he is my 7th great grand father,i have done a ton of research.the problem i have is i don,t know how to leave the citations info when i went into the thomas powell artical,both my wife and myself couldn,t figure how,i have info that is very interesting by major sources.can i just send you the info and have you insert it after you have checked the sources out.If would let me know if this is possible,that would be great.i assumeyou would reply on this site,i could leave you my e-mail,but i don,t know if everyone can see what i am writing,my name is david powell,i am curently trying to get a dna contact from the england side of our family,i currently have a 67 dna marker sample on file with familytreedna site.look forward to hearing from you.David  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davetom72 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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

I responded to every single point. I did it inline. And it was made unreadable.
And, on top of that, you have never dealt with the problem that your POV definition is less than half of the primary definition in all three major English language dictionaries. So you and Steve know better, and are a better or more neutral lexographers than Merriam-Webster or OED? Ha-Ha. 71.169.176.253 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a specious argument. It was unreadable, now it is readable. The anonymous IP created mess of that section of the talk page. I had to fix this person's mess. Also, the anon IP's action appears to be an attempt to hi-jack and dominate the discussion and the article. Also the propoed lede by the anonymous IP is vaguely worded and is not really based on reliable sources. The standing lede is accurate and clear. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
I am reposting this. There is an ANI discussion here Steve Quinn (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Date format tools
You made this post at ANI:

"You are using a tool that does not ALLOW changing ANYTHING to yyyy-mm-dd format - supporting changes ONLY away from YMD. Even when it is obvious that YMD is the established AND the predominant format, you (and others) have been using that tool to change away from YMD. There are already other tools that CAN change to yyyy-mm-dd - and they work very well. Yes, it is not simple to find out which format was first. In that case, simply leave accessdates alone for others to work on. Perhaps someone has a tool to search for first usage. Meanwhile, the community needs to rein in the biased tools. --JimWae (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)"

I don't agree that a tool should be reigned in just because it can't do some tasks. Should we forbid use of the Naval Observatory Julian date converter because it won't use the Julian calendar after October 1582, or the Gregorian calendar before then? I don't think so. But I would be interested in learning about better tools. I have used the Ohconfucius tool, although seldom twice in the same hour. I would certainly like to look at other tools to see if they are better. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the one I use is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plastikspork/date.js
 * Do people repeatedly use http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/JulianDate.php to violate WP guidelines? OhConfucius' tool is specifically designed to change AWAY from YMD - and NOT to change to YMD. This aligns with the very meaning of "bias" - a bias OhConfucius also explicitly stated -- until he removed that statement to prevent scrutiny.--JimWae (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another ANI notification.
Was just reading through ANI and an anon you may be familiar with has made a report relating to the discussion at Talk:Time. Seeing as it was pretty obvious from the talk page history who they were referring to, I thought I'd drop you a line to the ANI here Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Correcting talk page typos
Not a big deal, but WP:TALKO does say that there's "no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc." as it "tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting". Given the nature of the original request, I thought it might be worth not irritating the user. --McGeddon (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain
I do not understand why you reverted another community member's post to my talk page. Please explain. In the interim, I am going to revert your revert. Risker (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I might have to quit viewing my watchlist from my smartphone. I did not know I had even visited your page. Must have hit the screen in a spot I did not intend to or even know about. Sorry. --JimWae (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Date-style for Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington (& other American-interest articles)
Re: Lincoln
 * I thought that the agreement of dates (for either YYYY-MM-DD or Spelled month DD, YYYY) is according to the usage of dates within the article itself (and also per WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET)? There didn't previously seem to be a clear predilection within the article for the YYYY-MM-DD format.  The majority of the dates were in the 'Spelled month DD, YYYY' and the article is of United States interest where the American-style of 'Spelled month DD, YYYY' is common-usage.  It just seems to me that if consistency is the desired goal then the dates should instead be converted to the 'Spelled month DD, YYYY' variant.

Re:Washington
 * The changing of the dates on May 25, 2012 actually brought all the date usage into commonality. I see the dates within the refs as being 'Spelled month DD, YYYY' and this edit brought the accessdates into agreement with that previously-existing article-style.

It's possible I've just misunderstood some of the parameters regarding consistency rules/guidelines or have gotten the editing history of these various articles wrong. I'm willing to be persuaded that YYYY-MM-DD instead of 'Spelled month DD, YYYY' should be used as the citations'(accessdate/archivedate)-format or (whatever)date-format within these articles if you'd like to go into some of your reasoning. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at the last sentence of WP:STRONGNAT--JimWae (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...yeah, I see that... I guess I'm thinking about the other aspects of WP:STRONGNAT or of Consistency/MOS:DATEUNIFY... I think it's a good idea for the dates within an article's references to agree in any article, helps when you're trying to get an article to FA-status for certain.  But in these various articles about American subjects, a case could equally made for changing the accessdates to 'Spelled month DD, YYYY', since so many of the publication dates for the references are rendered American-style.  Shearonink (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles cannot fail FA-status for following WP guidelines. Like Engvar, WP:DATERET says that first use should be continued - that is how disputes are avoided. YMD also has the advantage of 1> reducing length of articles & 2> making it easier (just by scanning/skimming) to tell which date is date of publication & which is accessdate--JimWae (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood me I think... I was speaking to the guideline as I understand it that FA's should possess internal consistency (of whatever kind). Also, I am looking at DATERET (the things I learn from asking questions!) and there are some additional parameters regarding dates, not only the third parameter regarding that first usage should hold sway.  There are two other bullet points, first is regarding articles that evolve into using mostly one format, second is that the format chosen by the first major contributor should continue to be used. Shearonink (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, look at MOS:DATEUNIFY. It also specifically states that it is fine to have YYYY-MM-DD for accessdates and a different format for publication dates. Access and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD and gives an example in which publication dates are not YYYY-MM-DD and accessdates are YYYY-MM-DD. WP:DATERET is how disputes are avoided.--JimWae (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have a difference of opinion on how to interpret certain aspects of WP:MOSNUM and of WP:DATERET for nationality-interest articles. I find the complete changeovers in these various American-interest articles from 'Spelled month DD, YYYY' (yes, even just within the references or only for accessdate) to YYYY-MM-DD to be jarring and think (rather than the other way around), that any different date-formats should instead be brought into conformance with the predominant/previously existing dates and that common/national variant format should be used for the article's date-formats.  There doesn't seem to be editorial consensus to change the dates back to the previously-existing 'Spelled month DD, YYYY' though, so thanks for the discussion. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Deism
- Deus is the Latin word for "god", Deism or God-ism is basically the opposite of atheism.-

I've seen reference to this somewhere but we know it is obviously true, and is not mentioned on Wiki. Do you think it would be good to add this or something similar ? I believe it will help people to accept Deism if they see it is the opposite of atheism.

people are telling me the definition is much better and less confusing now.

Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That does look and sound better. Thanks. --Dsomeone (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Deism". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, I'm Vacation9. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Arizona because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Vacation9 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I may have to give up even browsing my watchlist on my smartphone - fat fingers & slower screen refreshes & all that. I did not intend to do anything to that article - not even read it. --JimWae (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

message alert
Re: Kalamkaar

--Skol fir (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Two-part edit challenge.

 * At 'American Civil War', I have posted what I hope can be received as a balanced account of the Confederate 100,000 using all four sources among Mike18xx, Rjensen and TVH at American Civil War. [Before I read an additional source Rjensen posted, so it remains a draft even among these three editors.]
 * - Please read the note all-the-way-through, I ALWAYS need sympathetic assistance on notes, it's like I have a blind spot -- I'm a "digital migrant" not a "digital native". So shoot me -- "they kill horses don't they" -- that's a literary allusion and metaphor and English-major-stuff I don't know about either -- so, anyway,
 * - I mean to restore the 4-paragraph INTRODUCTION section with conributions from Mike18xx, JimWae, Rjensen and TVH. Omitting mobilization detail in the Introduction. Detail relating to the November 1860 through March 1861 mobilization ramp-up to an important mid-19th century war of mass-conscript armies -- BOTH armies matching or excelling Napoleon's armies in important respects of world military history -- are intended to be developed in the linked 'Mobilization' section.
 * - At the 'Mobilization' section, the idea is that ALL vantage points can be written up in a more accurate narrative that is ALSO more compelling than a one-note drum beat. Like the song said, "nobody's right, if everybody's wrong". I will try to bring along Mike18xx and Rjensen also, resulting in a WP:LEAD four-paragraph article Introduction to meet peer-review critique for article GA status. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rectangle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corner (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) 10:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

George Washington
Re your deletion of this linkage...please take a look at the Article Feedback. Many young students or English as a Second Language readers are coming to this type of historical biography and seem to be finding it quite difficult to fully-understand the information in its Wikipedia presentation. What is the harm of making the Simple English linkage more prominent? These readers can't find the Simple English linkage on the side, it's slotted between Sinhalese (I think) and Slovenian. I think that even if the linkage was somehow made more prominent over to the side of the article, many readers (not editors) will still not see it. Many casual readers never pay attention to the coding/inner-workings/page-features that many of us seasoned editors can't help but see. In my opinion placing a Simple English linkage as some type of hatnote at the very beginning of a historical biography is entirely proper according to my understanding of the hatnote guidelines. I am opening a discussion thread on the article's talkpage to see what the editorial consensus towards using such a hatnote on the George Washington article might be. Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

US Presidential Election Standardization
Hello, I see that you commented on my section on Rjensen's talk page regarding my edits to standardize and cleanup US presidential election articles. As I said there, that section was only about his reverts in relation to my edits, and our justifications to both. It's been settled. I don't want to debate anybody else there or further add to it so I'll just talk to you about it here. I deleted your message there and cut and pasted it here, with my response below and so on. Note that I am editing from a college so the IP address changes every day.

I think beginning every election article with "The #### presidential election was the ##th quadrennial presidential election in the US" is a lot of words to say very little and a recipe for inciting readers to lose interest in an article right from the first sentence--JimWae (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is apparently entirely revolved around attracting interest. I can see your point, but it's no reason to do a different format. First, all of the election articles from 2000 onward, as well as few beforehand, had such an intro, yet they still are definitely read quite often. I standardized based on that model, which already existed, so it wasn't something I made up. Second, articles of almost ANY subject will start off with something equivalent to what I standardized by that isn't "eye-grabbing" by your standard. For example, an article about a notable politician who was notable across several positions, such as being an acclaimed governor AND senator or mayor, will usually have the first sentence either naming the highest rank they had only ("XXX was an American politician who served as the 36th governor of Maryland.") or simply no detail at all ("XXX was an American politician from Maryland."). Another example would be like a notable band or musician: the first sentence is usually something like "XXX is a British hard rock band" rather than "XXX is a British hard rock band and one of the most influential bands to the glam metal genre during the 1980s". Many presidential election articles were like the latter sentence, which is out of place and less clean. So what I standardized by is akin to most other kinds of articles of any subject. Third, it's merely the first sentence- what matters is the entire intro section. Most people won't turn away based on one sentence up front; they would turn away if the intro paragraphs don't state any of the notable details. Some presidential election articles should have more details (such as the 1900 and 1988 ones) but every single one has enough notable information to attract interest to the reader. Some of my edits even improved this by making the paragraphs flow better. Fourth, Wikipedia articles aren't high school essays. Formality and a proper first sentence are what articles should have, not some out of place "eye-opener". Building on my second reason, it's out of place and awkward to mention a detail about the election in the first sentence rather than start out properly. It cannot be standardized and it looks sloppy. Whereas you can still mention all the notable details ("took place in the middle of WWII", "greatest landslide in history in the electoral college", "heated rematch of the 1896 election", etc.) in the intro paragraphs and most people would read them. So with all these reasons, my model is not only neat, but accurate and fitting. 134.139.212.132 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)