User talk:JimsMaher

————————> Talk page guidelines <———————— Suggested reading: ... and of course, Lamest_edit_wars, for some laughs.
 * Civility
 * NPA2
 * NOCRUFT
 * MASTODONS
 * DOUBT

image move
In re your question on renaming images, you just need to put rename media with the proposed name and one of the file movers/admins will get to it. I did move the 'Powers of 10' image to 'Cosmic voyage'. Skier Dude ( talk ) 20:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK ... if I'm reading the instructions correctly, that would've been:  ... added somewhere noticeable (presumably the top) on the existing file page. Thank you. JimsMaher (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Teika kazura, regarding Algebra edits
Hi, JimsMaher. Thanks for your edit in algebra. But I've reverted most of it, with good reason, I think. Please read Talk:algebra and reply before you edit again. Of course, your edit has points, and I incorporated them.

I wonder if you could examine drafts before posting, in general wikipedia edits. The last revision by you had redundant paragraphs, and as I wrote in the talk page, contradictory structure.

Best regards, --Teika kazura (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There were no redundant paragraphs from the revision you refer to. I want to make sure ... when you "Compare selected revisions", are you comparing multiple edits or just one at a time? Because the only redundancy edited on the whole from me was a single sentence that was slightly rephrased and with some different links. I suppose I could've been more thorough on that, but to be fair, that redundancy existed before I touched it. Also, I should note, you incorporated virtually all of my points in your revision. With some juxtaposition of paragraphs, and the deletion of several relevent links. (speaking of which)


 * Remember that Wikipedia edits are never final. If it weren't for the Show Preview button, I suspect you'd be making your above comment on more pages than you could handle. Question though, if I hadn't edited your edits, or if I had done so over the course of a few months, would you still have commented here and on Talk:Algebra? And misrepresented my edits repeatedly in doing so? JimsMaher (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the by you. PLEASE, stop "copyeditting" the pages you don't understand, beyond fixing typo. Since I wrote why I had reverted the open talk page of algebra, it can be examined by many. Just wait. It may irritate you again, but since I reverted again, I have to clarify the reasons here. But if you get annoyed by comments, Wikipedia is not for you.

Don't add "citation needed" or "original research" tags to all the phrases you don't understand. Please accept that it's a too obvious fact even for college freshpersons interested in math that Algebra is one of the main branches of pure mathematics, together with geometry, analysis, topology, combinatorics, and number theory. (Well, the sentence may have a room to improve, but at least totally acceptable.) At least you can get it by browsing pages on topology, analysis, etc in Wikipedia or MathWorld. Do your homework before things.

You wrote Particular types of Algebraic structures themselves, referred to as "algebras" but "algbera is something" doesn't saying anything, or a weasel word, if you like to call so. If it were newly written, it could be simply revereted, but it was worse; you erased the legitimate defintion. Read the text before you modify. AND, you did it again. There, the word "algebraic" is not yet defined, and you shouldn't use it. READ what you write before you post it.

And again, it's a too simple fact that doesn't need citation. Please have a look at Algebra over a field and Template:Algebraic structures. "Algebra" in that sense is a very basic notion, and its examples Lie algebra or C* algebra are very important, "elementary" notions in pure math.

You also deleted the distinction of the historical and modern meaning of "algebra" in pure math. Citation may be good here, but at least you shouldn't delete offhand. Read Template:citation needed or Verifiability.

You also introduced "universal algebra" in the lead, but the lead is on "algebra", mainly on the word itself. It's less relevant in this introductory parts since the meaning of "algebra" varies as an element of composite words, as you can read off from this page. More directly, universal algebra is (or, can be seen as ) a branch of abstract algebra in broad sense, so it doesn't fit here. What you have done is close to Original research in spirit.

''And regarding 'constructions', I'll have to leave that as is, for someone more knowledgeable to can clarify. If you'd like, add the tag'': I don't like to repeat it, but if you don't understand, don't write it. (Sigh) You make things worse by writing more.

most edits on Wikipedia occur without comment.: So what? Read Edit warring. I already wrote it.

I deleted the etymology part from the lead, and put a link to Wiktionary instead. See WP:NAD. It's totally ok to refer to it in the "History" section. (And please answer on the etymology issue I asked if don't like to be rude.)

If you don't at least read the text you're going to modify nor read what you're going to post, you're not even adequate to add tags like Citation needed etc.

Stop childish whining, pretexts, and concocting stories. Be fair and just, and face the facts. OR you make your OWN impression bad.

Please read well before you reply. Night-night. --Teika kazura (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me add one point. Aside from judging tags adequacy, it doesn't require math knowledge at all to see that your edits were wrong. Maybe you are needed elsewhere than here. Both you and I wasted time, and none was happy. --Teika kazura (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"You make things worse by writing more."

You now seem to be of the opinion that everything I do is wrong.

I do apologize for whatever harm I may have caused you. You have attacked me, definitively now, I do not know that I have done the same, but I am sorry. In deference now, I will ask instead of presuming ... Are you English as a second language? Because that would explain a lot. I ask because, I have suspected since I first read your first edit, but what triggers my asking now is that ... it is "adequately", not "adequacy", in the context of your statement: "Aside from judging tags adequacy, it doesn't require math knowledge at all to see that your edits were wrong."

Regardless, for you to say (through action, as well as words) that all of my most recent edits on Algebra were wrong (edits that in part asked for citations, clarification, a new reference, suggested original research (which, yes, I intended to mean from you, Teika kazura) and tightened up some of the wording in the lead (leads should always be concise)) ... your wholesale reversion of my edits ... suggests that I should bring this matter to independent review, regarding edit warring, and potentially libelous flaming now. I will let you respond, or not, and will reconsider my position on how to proceed ... I should have a decision before the new year. Again, I am sorry I angered you, for editing your edits or for any other reason. But do not continue to disparage me for attempting to improve Wikipedia ... If you insist on responding, please quote what you mean when you say I should "Stop childish whining", as I have no idea what you are talking about on that note.

I have changed this section's title to reflect the subject matter more appropriately. As you seem unwilling to find compromises with me on these edits, I will not be editing any page that I have seen you as having previously edited, until such a time as this issue has been resolved.

Please, note that I am commenting on your tone and pattern of behavior, and not your stated rationale behind your most recent edits (see above). This is not to suggest that I in any way agree or disagree with those edits, in whole or in part. Rather, it is to avoid further reason for you to disparage me. JimsMaher (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)