Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 27 October 2008

archive1 archive2 archive3 archive4 archive5 archive6 archive7 archive8

Handy hint: to keep discussions in one place, if you leave a talk message I'll answer it here, though I may put a note on your page if getting your attention seems important. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.

Thanks so much

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:21, 27December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

...And never apologize for fixing my grammar, typing or spelling! I appreciate the assist! KillerChihuahua 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit

Your bluntness is refreshing considering the level of duplicitous doublespeak used by certain editors. I congratulate you. If I only had the balls to say what you do, I'd be happier on here!!! Orangemarlin 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gnixon had bitched that FM had reverted his digression without comment, that doing so wasn't fair, that he (nixon) had taken a very long time to write the digression, that he was insulted, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam (and I really do mean nausea) -- so, I only thought it fair to provide a reason for the rv lest Mr Nixon thought I was being unfair towards him  ;) Ugh, sometimes Wiki can be more drama and trouble than than a soap opera and we can't even win an Emmy for our efforts. •Jim62sch• 10:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch out, that editor will file some Rf something because you've insulted him. I gave up editing articles where he was located, because he whines if you revert any of his POV pushing edits. I decided it isn't worth the effort. I'm having fun with some nice intellectual pursuits on here. Orangemarlin 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He's free too do so, of course, I don't mind. Of course, the process can be used the other way too: he's a rather tendentious, POV-pushing editor who frequently wreaks havoc on the pages he edits, including causing other editors to avoid articles he is actively editing due to the nature of his edits, particularly on the talk pages. Wouldn't surprise me if a few folks aren't already considering an RfC on his behaviour. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're stalking. Diff I was accused of the same. I just plain gave up on it. There comes a point when someone's POV pushing needs to pushed back by someone else, because I just don't have the time or energy to be nice about the push back. You should check out some of his POV edits. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me. If you think I'm right, I could use some help. Orangemarlin 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he apologised...sort of. POV edits on Physics or on ID (I know he's done some stuff there) or elsewhere? I don't care about his staking charges -- if an editor is running around making changes with a specific POV that he's pushing in violation of policy, fixing those edits is not stalking. See Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

-- "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." •Jim62sch• 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this an appeasement too far? Is this chappie to be the patron saint of faith based npov? Time for coffee and kip. .. dave souza, talk 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, reminds me of Chamberlain after Munich. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the Fringe 1961:

Oi'll never forget that day that war was declared

Oi was out in the gaarden at the time, planting out some chrysants

It was a grand year for chrysants 1939, oi had some lovely blooms

My wife came out to me in the gaarden and told me the Prime Minister's announcement of the outbreak of war

Never mind, my dear, oi said to 'er. You put on the kettle, we'll have a nice cup of tea

<avoids mentioning the appeaser Chamberlain actually declared war on the Nazis, unlike some who waited till Hitler declared war on them. Ahem. Just trivia with no relevance to present company> Ta for your assistance, may the Good NPOV prevail........ 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did ye cross out the delaration info? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an inadequate html attempt to replicate typical British-style muttering brought on by the reminder of all those black-and-white war films. Gad, the horrors of war films. Chamberlain is much maligned, mostly deservedly. Meanwhile, the battle of ID continues, without my participation for a bit. What make you of recent goings on? .. dave souza, talk 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the question wasn't meant for me, but let me put in my opinion on the ID discussions. It appears that there are 2-3 POV pushers who seem to be exceedingly patient in the matter. One of the pushers complains that he's a "pot smoking liberal" but doesn't agree with the lack of NPOV on the ID article. As a matter of fact, very few "liberals" brag about their pot smoking. I don't inhale whenever I do. Another of the POV-pushers uses a technique of throwing in dozens of edits. Most of them look very legitimate but two or three are in fact very POV (anti-Evolution, in this case). Another one just keeps pushing the anti-Evolution POV over and over. Guettarda has indicated that there might be some interesting activities afloat to push a pro-religion agenda, and they are very careful as to how they do it. These users appear to be doing so. Another issue is that the several editors who have stood up to the POV-pushers aren't around. I've given up, because frankly, it's not worth responding to every bogus argument they make. Then if you do accuse them of their POV pushing, they file an WP:ANI, which takes more time. I'm frustrated by what's happening. ID is nothing more than a subtle religious argument for creationism. Why is there such discussions going on? I like Jim's responses--he's blunt, and could care less about what they creationists say about him. This whole thing is depressing. Orangemarlin 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> It's a bit more complex, as Morphh raised a genuine point which was backed up by a reading of Kitzmiller, leading to the current use of version 2. Despite the ghastly heading of "Just the facts, ma'm" which had me looking to see if it was a rasping person, Tomandlu is genuine and ok, imo. As I write, a useful suggestion is being put forward and agreed by Gnixon, who appears to be fair and against pro-ID pov, judging by recent actions. Looks promising, but I'm thinking about it before commenting... dave souza, talk 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Lovely work on God - the article is improving enormously. KillerChihuahua 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't know you were such an expert Jim. I know who to run to for help on all of these religion articles.  :) Orangemarlin 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Latin

I wish I could read it. Sophia 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written what I have written, but you have not read what I have written. (Technically, I should have done "scripsi quod scripsi", but I didn't want to mess up the biblical reference.)  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that one - I may use it and pretend I know latin! Sophia 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You might like this one too (I leave it as an edit summary when I get frustrated with Fundies trying to do things like put dinosaurs on Noah's Ark): "In principio creavit homo dei et ex eo tempore poenas dederat" In the beginning, man created the gods and he's been paying for it ever since.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Or my favorite, Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur - "Anything said in Latin sounds profound". I find it useful in dealing with Jim. (:-P) OTOH, Non gradus anus rodentum may be more to your liking. KillerChihuahua 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No step ass rat? What? If you meant what I think you did, it's not translatable. Nil morari is the closest you can get. Interesting tidbit: in Latin, the root of "profound" (found most often in the phrase de profundis), is the exact opposite of "altum" in the quote. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nil carborundum illegitemii! Which reminds me, Johnson is regarded as the father of ID, but it was evidently conceived in 1987 before he'd even heard of it, which casts some doubt on the legitimacy of the offspring.... dave souza, talk 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad sign when illegitemi reminds one of Johnson, but it's true.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking the slow approach at the hypothemyth page - it's not worth getting frustrated about. Also Str is OK with me - we have our moments but with enough time and attempts to work out what each other mean, we should end up with a stable title. Ta for the latin - they will come in useful when I want to look educated! Sophia 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure Str out -- he makes some good edits and some really bad ones. Sometimes his logic is sound, other times it's seriously flawed. And I really wish he'd leave the language stuff alone -- he has no clue what he's on about. Now, I have to go try to stabilise that section. Grrrr. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's flawed like all of us. He made a point over at one article or another, where he was very logical. However, I still disagreed with him. Orangemarlin 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The joys of being human.  :)

In any case, on the God article he's busy claiming that Allah is not the Muslim name for God, while claiming "nameship" for a variety of other "words". I really wish that people who know nothing of linguistics would leave linguistic/etymological issues alone. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of ]

WTF? What is so hard about grasping the legal concepts? Seems to me we have more than our share of officious admins who think they have the legal knowledge of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, but who are more like Vincent LaGuardia Gambini on a bad day. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I hate to engage in hyperbole, but here's some. I notice that the image at right, being a freely licensed image, was kept in this IfD while the classic, even stunnning Einstein-Planck image was deleted because WP wants to be free. Free of what? of everything of value in the world that someone hasn't yet given over to "free-license"? Arrgh! Thanks for letting me vent here. ... Kenosis 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the importance of that picture is that it shows just how stupid the up and coming generation is. However, the Einstein/Planck picture shows just the opposite and heaven forfend that we should depict intelligence when ignorance and idiocy are the general rule. Bah! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep your talk page on my watch list just coz I love your comments! Sophia 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I occasionally have my good days.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF? I just saved the images to my computer for future reference. Two of the most brilliant scientists ever in a picture whose licenseholder must be dead by now. Thanks Jim for making my day with your commentary.  :) OrangeMarlin 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought for a new day

The sun is shining for the moment here, so after all that πολεμικως, Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag :) ...dave souza, talk 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you the only one to catch the irony? I laugh...so as not to cry. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You pointed it out, you blighter! As noted here, that apposite article was a nice example of writing therapy. As it happens, it was inspired by one of the usual topic related arguments when someone mentioned faggots which in my opinion are ok but a bit more disgusting looking than haggis – but then I recall you have your own regional delicacies that outsiders probably don't appreciate. Chacun à son goût springs to mind, but I can't quite remember what it means. ... dave souza, talk 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Everybody has gout." Bishonen | talk 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

Yes, very close. Each to his own taste. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, revising my version: "Everybody tastes good." Bishonen | talk 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

Oooh, I like that one!  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have excellent French. I can say "J'ai assassiné mon oncle au'jourd'hui dans le jardin." And I'm working on some more phrases! Bishonen | talk 21:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

PS. Nothing yet — I guess I only have an excellent sentence. Oh well. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

What did your uncle do and why was he in the garden? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Sorry I've not been of much help lately, but things have been a bit crazy. And, thanks for tackling the rewrite -- quite a challenge you took on. Nice job. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Hi Jim, I don't regularly visit Intelligent design but noticed that some of your comments there were a little more sarcastic than necessary. That topic can get combative at times, so best not to turn up the temperature. Stay cool, man -- you'll score more points in the long run that way. Raymond Arritt 03:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, thanks. Yep, I get pretty pissed off -- it's this whole "not suffering fools" and "getting tired of proving that the sun is yellow for the nth time" thing. Personally, I find sarcasm to be an effective tool, but I understand your point. Oh, others who have posted here will likely be wondering why my response to you differs from my response to them: your comments were constructive, not accusatory. I respect that (even with my penchant for sarcasm  ;) Take care. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it -- we see the same thing over and over again on the global warming related articles (all the CO2 is coming from volcanoes/the ocean, etc). The worst is a couple of characters who know nothing about the science and in fact have demonstrated an alarming lack of aptitude for simple quantitative reasoning, yet quite comfortably talk down to other editors. Wonder if I can send Misplaced Pages the dental bills from gritting my teeth. It can be frustrating as hell, but I try to remember a quote I heard, "the one who loses his temper first, loses." Raymond Arritt 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the global warming arguments, and I've mostly managed to stay out of them. Cuts down on my bruxism wikiosis bills.  :)

I think what bothers me most is that those with little or no understanding of a subject tend to dominate the discussion and waste everyone's time until said tendentious fool is finally driven away. It can be very draining.

As for global warming, I can understand some of the dfisagreements as the science isn't quite as strong as I'd like to see it. Is it improving? Yes, but it still has a way to go, and we'll never get to the point where we can predict anything climatologiucal beyond the level of a reasonable possibility (it's that whole butterfly in the Amazon thing). However, that doesn't make the theory wrong, doesn't mean that CO₂ is spilling out of volcanoes or leeching from the oceans, doesn't mean that GW is some liberal conspiracy, doesn't mean that denialists aren't denialists deluding themselves with religion and pseudoscience, etc. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Noetic necropathy

Just noticed that one. It's a keeper. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope

This edit summary almost restores my faith in humanity. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Greek question

Is this edit correct? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, yes. The Theta actually represented an aspirated "t" not the th sound in either this (call an edh) or think (called a thorn). Two asprirated T's would've been a bit much for the Roman tongue (and, it's unlikely both T's were aspirated even in Greek by the 1st or 2nd century CE -- the t's weren't initially aspirated in Hebrew, but the Greek spelling comes from a contraction of Mattathias, and the first theta represents the middle vowel (the lack of which may have been mistaken for aspiration in Hebrew)). Yep, clear as mud.

Anyway, see Matthew 9:9, look for Μαθθαιον (accusative of Μαθθαιος) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now I feel ignorant. Are you aware of a good source we could stick in the article to back this up? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll check into one. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guadalcanal

I just noticed your helpful edits to the Guadalcanal Campaign article. I appreciate that. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I love WWII history (and have my share of books and DVD's on the topic), but I've just gotten side-tracked by ID/creationism vs evolution stuff too often to do as much editing on WWII articles as I'd like. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We really need to relax

I understand your feelings on the matter, but there really isn't a victory in declaring war on creationism just to make a point. "According to current scientific consensus" is a perfectly good qualifier that doesn't discredit or dilute the claims made in this article in any way. I have no wish to tell anyone, religious or not, that scientific claims are absolute truth. If we start doing that then we hand the creationists the argument. This debate ceases to be about faith vs. evidence and becomes one of faith vs. faith. Serendious 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Evolution as theory and fact. Yes theory is a fact. Scientific consensus does not exist, since a bunch of scientists do not sit in a room discussing stuff, then formulating some random theory. In fact, it takes thousands of published and peer-reviewed articles, all of which are argued, confirmed, and supported, before a theory is formed. You are misusing the word "theory." OrangeMarlin 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion will soon no longer be relevant, since it is almost midnight, but for the record I didn't mention the word "theory." The nebular hypothesis isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. Evolution is a fact because we can observe it in action today. We cannot do similar with the nebular hypothesis, and there will always be a certain amount of doubt involved, particularly as we study the strange orbits outside the Kuiper belt. So I don't really mind using a qualifier in that case. Serendious 20:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was in a pissy mood -- I get so tired of the creationist interference.

I'm not getting into the theory/fact/hypothesis discussion.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand. And since the issue is now passed I'm quite happy to let it go. As regards the edit, I should point out that I copied most of it from Oort cloud but, since I wrote most of Oort cloud in the first place, I didn't really regard it as theft. :-) Serendious 15:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty hard to plagiarise oneself. :) Anyway, the additions and edits you made to the Solar system article were quite helpful, and will be a benefit to students. I've already explained the workings, origin and evolution of the solar system to one of my kids, but I should probably have her read the Wiki article -- not because the info differs from what I've told her, but because seeing it in print may advance her understanding of the topic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC

You've been named as an involved party at this RfAR. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

Just so you know, there is a report about you here. To say that I consider the report to be misguided would be an understatement. PhilKnight (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"If I was vindictive". LOL. Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire complaint is beyond ludicrous. Sorry if that offends anyone. I would have a lot more to say, but I think I will just shake my head in amazement over this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that not only is ArbCom completely FUBAR, but admins over at AN/I as well :-( Shot info (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Phil for notifying me, and for your kind words. Thanks also Guettarda, Fill and Shot info for your support.

Looks like the whole silly affair ended quickly, although I find Sceptre's and particularly Kelly's comments to be harrasment and a complete mistatement of the Arbcom decision. For the benefit of Kelly and Sceptre should they wend their way here: I was not placed on a short leash, nor was I muzzled, nor was I prohibited from editing any articles. I was enjoined from what Arbcom saw as bullying, thus raising an irony here as bullying seems to be what Sceptre and Kelly are doing. And, as I've noted elsewhere, I'm getting really, really tired of the ID Cabal bullshit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't quack, then. Sceptre 17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Don't quack, then."? Meaning what? Please enlighten me, Sceptre. [[User:Jim62sch|&#0149;Jim62<font face="Times New Roman"

Poor showing on Sceptre's part, I've dropped a reminder about civility. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So much for the note. Perhaps it was embarassing, especially in light of a proposed RFA?&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Sceptre, why did you intentionally misquote me? If you think you could read my mind, I assure you that you can't. Had I meant "Christian scientists" I would have said so. If you've not figured out by now that I say precisely what I mean, I'm afraid you never will. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee that any answer you get here is not going to move things forward, so I'd suggest just dropping it and moving on. The Mets are on an 8-game winning streak, so I know you have other things to worry about... :) MastCell  20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and I really didn't expect a good answer from either Kelly or Sceptre, but I did want to express my outrage. And damn those Mets. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For Future Reference

. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

is future proofed. . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it provides a wealth of data for analysis. It seems funny to me that the same folks who push the ID Cabal bull, seem to show up en masse when certain editors are involved. It's like a surreal pot-meet-kettle thing. I also found it interesting that on a discussion regarding civility, several of those folks were quite uncivil and one was really pushing teh dramaz. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bona Fides

Whence the MD? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'm flattered that you ask. I earned my M.D. degree in 1987 from Universided del Noreste, Tampico, Mexico, and I completed my last year of medical school in Boston, U.S.A. My U.S. clinical education was broadly based and diverse, including John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School prior to undergrad studies, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Columbia Medical School in New York, Indian Health Service USPHS in Talequa, OK., and Harvard Medical School. My post graduate internship (PGY1) was in Nuevo Laredo at IMSS and the indigent "Hospital Civil". My PGY2 was in social service for the Mexican Ministry of Health in rural Tamaulipas, and PGY3-4 was as a Researh Associate with Baylor College of Medicine. Thanks for your interest. Best Regards. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bedford

Thanks, and to repeat what I told Puppy, hopefully this shows there's nothing personal towards you. I'm just trying to make Misplaced Pages a better place any way I can. Though, to be honest, anything Kurt Weber supports is guaranteed to go down in flames. Such is he the angel of death of all strawpolls :/ Sceptre 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought about posting (or not) for a bit of time on Friday afternoon. I think the main reason I posted it in the end is because I had to for the targets of his attacks who wouldn't post it themselves because they're too nice (not that's a bad thing) - for example, have you ever seen Phaedriel or Alison actually start drama intentionally? Sceptre 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NLP

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Misplaced Pages itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process: pseudoscience

See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources

I've left a note on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

No users (excluding arbitrators) are to edit proposed decision pages. That's a rule that's always been in place. I put your omment on the proposed decision talk page. Wizardman 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the sanctity of the pantheon. Can I have a ref, please? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is automatically placed on every proposed decision page of all arbcom cases in the first paragraph. While I don't see it in the arbitration policy, I have also never seen it broken, and it appears to be generally accepted. Wizardman 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So, it's a convention not a rule. In other words it's piffle. Cool. Other than the edit-warring problem, I could restore it then. Cool -- especially as my comment raises a legitimate issue. Of course, legitimate issues that question "authority" are bad. Bah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

No, you couldn't readd it. We've shown you where it said you can't, so no wikilawyering please. It's protected anyway, so I suspect you'd find it rather difficult. If you've got concern, add it to the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Very grown up response...reads like "nya-nya-nya-nya-na". It's a convention, it's not a rule -- no wikilawyering crap, just logic. I know, I'm just a rouge non-admin who wonders if wiki can dig itself into an even deeper hole. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have such concerns, drop them (presumably civilly) on that page's talk page. It's my experience that the arbitrators do read them. - jc37 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sanctity of the pantheon"??? If you're trying to impress people with your maturity and reasonableness, that may not be the best approach to achieving that goal. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to impress anyone, as there really aren't very many people here worth trying to impress. There's a very real problem with cognitive dissonance on WP, a problem that has only intensified over the course of the past year with the inability to grasp a situation objectively, secret tribunals, support of known internet kranks, et cetera. Bottom line is that WP is farther away from Jimbo's dream encyclopedia than it was three years ago and has degenerated into an on-line forum that attracts primarily the lunatic fringe. Shame, really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have used the wording "leave the impression that you are mature and reasonable", which is a different connotation than "trying to impress" anyone. I'm not here to impress anyone either, but I do want to leave the impression that I am mature and reasonable (and collegial), because that's what I think I am, and know it's what I want to be. If you don't actually want to be those things, there's a bigger problem, I guess. To your larger point, I do think there is indeed a problem with cognitive dissonance, and that it's growing. Heck, I am currently subject to something that some might call a "secret tribunal" right now (although I happen to agree with the need for confidentiality), and I'm dismayed at some of the recent developments in various cases. What's funny/ironic/interesting here is that two people can agree there's a problem, even on the nature of that problem, but not on exactly what the contributing factors are. (or maybe, even on what the contributing factors are, but just not agree on which people should be binned where). I suspect that might be the case here, at least in part. But really, to the smaller point, trying to abide by the norms of cases seems goodness to me. And that does nothing to take away from the validity of the point you were initially trying to raise. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We probably just have a bit of a difference in the way we analyse things, which is actually good for the project. On another, non-WP, issue, a difference of opinions regarding root causes might have benefited the US and other NATO countries in addressing the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Not, of course, that we're disagreeing on as important an issue.

As for the norms, I understand the desire to support them, but if you look up my "personality type" (INTJ) it's remarkably close to what I'm like. In other words, I guess I don't find much comfort in norms.

As to collegiality as a concept, Academia if chock-full of examples of anything but. Not that that's great from a standpoint of civility, but it probably does help us gain more knowledge. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

On an AN/I proposal i've been compiling, you wrote this cryptic note:

What would Satan do? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this an obscure joke of some kind? If so, perhaps you have me confused with someone else who might appreciate it. I'm sure that tagging pages is fun for you, and i would not want to spoil your fun, but leaving random, unhelpful graffiti on my work-space is rather childish, even for a Wikipedian. Grow up soon, okay? Thanks in advance! catherine yronwode. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You post from an IP even though you have a user name? Huh?

Basically, your diabolical smear campaign against hrafn deserves precisely what I wrote. Not childish ("even for a Wikipedian", whatever the hell that means), simply accurate. To me, smear campaigns are childish. Of course, YMMV.

Nice bio, speaks volumes. What was that about growing up?

By the way, as I only left one comment, the word would be graffito; if it were truly graffito, that is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

You've been included in a case at the Mediation Cabal, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. Feel free to put your two cents in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your name-calling and uncivility is unhelpful

Your recent name-calling and snide comments against User:Catherineyronwode both here and here are not helpful and quite against the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Please stop. Thanks, Madman (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Had you bothered to look at her bio you would understand the references, thus dispelling amy thoughts of "name-calling". Are the comments snide in the context of the forum? Nope. Additionally, Cat's crusade against a valuable editor is the very definition of incivility. Thank you. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing your incivility and name-calling. Even if she were uncivil, that would not justify yours -- snide comments are snide comments, whether here (as in your reply) or anywhere else. Thanks in advance for stopping, Madman (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you mis-read Jim's comment. It's rather strange to scold someone about "incivility" and then ignore their perfectly reasonable request of you. If you call yourself a biology professor, and someone refers to you as "the biologist", that isn't "name calling". Guettarda (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time interpreting this posting as anything but a snide comment devoid of content. Madman (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would he do? Shot info (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL

Gee-wiz, ya can't even pun on WWJD around here.  ;) By the way, Madman, if it's devoid of content (which is a philological and logical impossibility), why did you get yer knickers in a twist? All you really need to do is to analyse the comment in the context of the bio, and the context of the plot plan to degrade and attrit Hrafn. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does the name Webber, or We66er, mean anything to you? KillerChihuahua 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be User:We66er - thanks. KillerChihuahua 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, should it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Feh. It didn't mean a darn thing to me, either. Fairly new user; I haven't checked his contribs in detail but his talk page shows no evidence of anything in particular, and his contribs list shows an interest in science and politics. GRBerry is under the delusion that he's a member of the ID Wikiproject; that he's been editing in tandem with you on some political article or other; and that this is proof I need to change my behavior. I'm not making this up; check GRB's talk page. I was just wondering if there was anything to GRB's delusion or not; it appears he's completely unconnected on this subject. KillerChihuahua 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing with me? Given that I don't edit with anyone (unless I have a page watch-listed and our opinions happen to be reasonably close) it seems about as likely as Hurricane Ike becoming a blizzard over the Gulf. GRB is just another troll following a dead and tiresome meme. Of course, I understand that some of the facilitators for volunteers around this dump think that the meme is valid, but smoking socks will do that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See Creation Evidence Museum. I guess editing the POV out of a double-wide trailer story makes him a member of the cabal. OrangeMarlin 21:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now what? Sorry but I'm a little under par right now, the dentist gave me some pain medication... Do we warn the poor newbie? Watchlist his page and stalk him so if GRB attacks him we can say something? No dammit that will backfire and convince the jerks who spread this meme its True. I am open to suggestions here. I tried talking to GRB and got precisely nowhere. Make a report? Hell, Lar is claiming he wants to help, ask him to try to talk sense into GRB? I dunno. Feh. KillerChihuahua 22:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd take this to AN or ANI for input, but I don't want another repeat of the mess when I took Kelly's attacks there. KillerChihuahua 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP has adopted the reality show meme. 'Nuff said? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't watch tv, so I'm not sure I understand the reference. KillerChihuahua 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to bite you. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

I'd really like to think that my initial impression of you was correct. But lately, I've been concerned with what I've been seeing.

What has occurred to cause such a dramatic change?

(I do notice you've removed the Barnstar I gave you.)

If you've a wont to, would/could you please clarify/explain the apparent change in personality, perspective, and tone? - jc37 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No real change, and I can't give you all the details as doing so would require me to turn into Moulton and release personal info. I won't do that. But, keep the user name I just mentioned in mind. Visit Wikiversity. With a little digging, it'll all become clear. Sorry JC, that's the best I can do -- I'd love to explain it all, knowing that you'd understand, but I just can't in this forum. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Thank you.

I will defer from jumping on the bandwagon of accusations. But I'd like to gently request that you consider your comments a bit more. Those who may not have had such positive interactions with you in the past may misunderstand or misconstrue your comments. Whatever is going on, I would like to hope that it doesn't end up causing you (further) sanctions. - jc37 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are speaking about v:Ethical Management of the English Language Misplaced Pages (and such), I should probably note a few things.

I (at first, rather not aware of what was truly going on) posted at the talkpage (diff) rather early on.

However, something was striking me as "odd", or seeming a bit "off". So I did a bit of "research", as it were. (As you say, this probably isn't the venue for discussing such.) And in the process decided that this "discussion" was probably not what it appeared to be, and really wasn't a place that I should be (diff). Since then, they apparently moved the early comments to a sub-page (diff), with no links from the original talk page that I see.

Why post this? Because I'm hoping that you don't place your eggs all in a basket that may not be what you think it is. (Then again, perhaps you are aware and I'm being naive. But then, WP:AGF does lean us all towards a touch of naivite : )

Anyway, I hope your days go better, and I wish you well. - jc37 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's more to it, but ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to be blocked for a time, you can request it formally rather than fanning drama. I suggest you cool off on your own. You're still welcome here. Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All good advice. WP:NAM seems apposite. . dave souza, talk 08:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I look nothing like a Mastodon.  ;) Luke, I'm not fanning drama, I'm simply quite tired of the illogic of the proposed desysopping, the cabal allegation bullslop, the inaction regarding outing (see above), the secret tribunal of OM that resulted in no action against FT2, and on and on. Editing articles is great, but I can no longer edit without someone dredging up cabal bullslop or ascribing motives. I appreciate your comments, though. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different

Hi, if you're too annoyed to be patient with a newbie lemme know - but I need a linguist (old Greek and latin, I think) to assist. KillerChihuahua 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot help, can you point me in the direction of someone who can? KillerChihuahua 18:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Assist where? What do you need? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an editor, new to Misplaced Pages, User:Alleichem. S/he has been making questionable edits to God, see her/his contribs and talk page. Really that's all you'll need to see - the desired edit is a bit questionable to my ignorant mind, and the source given (after I asked for one) does not support it. I don't know if s/he is confused, misinformed, informed but bad at finding sources, or something else. I figger sense yew no langitches yew kan tel. KillerChihuahua 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Follow That Man (aka "Man Against Crime")

Is this how we welcome new articles? (and I mean new -- within two minutes of its creation). Enough -- get a life. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:41, 22 Septembe 2008 (UTC)

oops sorry that was a mistake a apologise on that one I have been tagging a bit too much ;)

Alexnia (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK ... I was a bit touchy because, well, it was the speed of it that totally startled me. It's all good though, and I'm sorry if I was too pissy. Cheers.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

German translation

Hi again Jim. Here I am again to request another translation, this time in German. Whenever you have a couple of minutes to spare could you have a look at this image. I'm ok with the map's labeling but need a little help with the key. Any help would be much appreciated. --Gibmetal 77 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gib. Here goes ...

Iberoromanische Sprachen = Ibero-Romance languages

Spanisch bzw Kastillisch = Spanish, aka, Castillian

Asturisch = Asturian

Galicisch = Galician

Portugiesich = Portuguese

Katalanische mit etc., = Catalan, including Valencian and Balearic.

Aragonesisch = Aragonese

Andere Spachen = Other languages

Gaskonish = Gascon (a form of Langue d'oc

Languedokisch = Langue d'oc

Baskisch = Basque

Englisch - well, I'm sure you got that one  :)

Hope this helps. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thank you very much, I can now go ahead and create an English and Spanish version of the map. Thanks again, and I hope you don't mind me asking for your help with translations every so often! --Gibmetal 77 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask away, this is the kind of stuff I like.  :) Please let me know when the map is done, I'd like to see how it turns out. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know! I'm just planning to label over the existing image, I'm a lot better at product design than I am at graphic design. Will let you know when I upload it anyway. Gracias de nuevo y hasta luego! --Gibmetal 77 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification:AE

For your information, we've been discussing you here.--Tznkai (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as a Reliable Source

Jim, there's a bit of a dispute about the appropriateness of blogs as a Reliable Source in a BLP article. Since you've commented this issue in a related article, and seem familiar with WP-policies related to this issue I was wondering if you'd take a look and perhaps make a comment. Thanks. - DannyMuse (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification on Pseudoscience Category Arbitration

Request for clarification on Pseudoscience Category implementation -- Let's get some expert guidance from the Arbcom on the use of this pejorative category tag.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Commented. Ta. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And a reply here, sorry about the use of a brief term, if that was confusing, hope the comment makes more sense now. FT2  22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Concern

Jim62sch, I am concerned by some of your recent comments at various user talkpages, and Talk:Intelligent design. Though there is no individual comment which is way over the line, it does appear to show a pattern of uncivil sniping, rather than providing constructive comments which are focused on the article. Especially in articles that are already powderkegs, such comments may tend to escalate disputes, rather than de-escalate them. I also note, looking at your contribs, Jim62sch (talk · contribs), that over the last few weeks your activities have focused on a very few talkpages, and that you do not appear to be doing any actual article work. I'll be honest that I've been pondering whether or not your presence on these articles is helpful, and/or whether you should be asked to stay away per one of the relevant ArbCom cases, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch or Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Note that I am not making this a formal warning, but please accept it as an expression of concern. So, in the future, could you please try harder to focus on positive changes to articles, decrease your comments about other editors, and strive to adopt a more positive and constructive tone? I think that would be helpful in many ways. Thanks, --Elonka 22:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, as was asked of you by another editor: why are you digging up old things? Why are you trawling? Why are you stirring the pot?

In a best-case scenario, you are expressing your opinion. To quote something I said in another forum: " are entitled to their opinions, and if their opinions were offered meakly and apologetically, I'd be disappointed. Why? Because true academic types care deeply and really do argue. The collegial myth is just that, a myth. Two of the greatest physicists, Einstein and Heisenberg argued bitterly and the study of physics is stronger for it."

I'll note that having read your six editor challenge far more than six editors have had significant problems with your MO. BTW, you're clearly misreading my RfAr -- read it more carefully when you get the time. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: re "over the last few weeks your activities have focused on a very few talkpages, and that you do not appear to be doing any actual article work." Is there some prohibition against talk page activity? Is there some magical percentage or ratio of article work to talk page activity? Is there a requirement that volunteers must dedicate a specific amount of time to certain activities? In all honesty, I don't see your comment as being particularly helpful, I see it as harassment.

This, I see as a threat and as bullying: "I'll be honest that I've been pondering whether or not your presence on these articles is helpful...". You might wish to consider redaction. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you regard my comments as harassment. Please rest assured that I have nothing personal against you. We have never (to my knowledge) worked on the same articles, and I know nothing more about you than what can be gleaned from your userpage and contribution history. As for your other comments, I do agree with you that a certain amount of spirited debate can be very useful! However, this must be focused debate, which is targeted at the article, and not at other editors. I would also like to reinforce that my comments here are not an official warning. When I issue warnings, they are very clear, with a formal template, and I log things to the appropriate ArbCom case page. And I do understand what you're saying about your own case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch, and that it's probably not directly applicable here. The Pseudoscience case, however, is a different matter. Anyway, all I'm asking for now is that you consider my comments, and perhaps try to adopt a more collegial and constructive demeanor on talkpages. You are still welcome to argue with force and passion! And as long as those arguments stay in accordance with WP:CIVIL, you probably won't need to worry about any other warnings from me.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 16:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that my comments were sarcastic, and a thorough search of WP:CIVIL indicates no prohibition against sarcasm: in fact the word isn't even mentioned. As no editor whomsoever was targeted by my comments, and as they referred to general observations re the tenor of the discussions, I do not in any way see them as incivility. More to follow... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you chose the pseudoscience RFAR to reference, since one of the biggest debates on the ID article has been whether or not ID is pseudoscience.

In addition, you did not answer my questions re some magical ratio.

Finally, I've noted that you've been flitting about WP recently leaving your lists of "concerns" on various user's pages (and, interestingly, it seems to be mostly editors with purported pro-Science POV's). I'm not sure how this is your place, nor do I see how seeking out things that displease you by trawling through the contribution lists and then dumping these "lists of concerns" on a user's page with, in a number of cases, clear threats, is in any way anything other than trollish, and in some cases bullying . &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really keeping track of who's for or against which types of content. More I try to check to ensure that editors are only adding information which is based on reliable sources, that the sources are properly interpreted, and that any edits do not appear to be in violation of policies or talkpage consensus. However, if you feel that I'm giving warnings more to one "side" than another, I am definitely willing to re-examine my practices. Is there someone in particular that you feel should have been warned, that was not warned? If so, please provide a recent diff or two which show problematic behavior, and I'll definitely take a look! Thanks, --Elonka 19:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, you're either missing the point or talking around what I'm saying, andwhat others have said regarding your behaviour. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gemo. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Noooo...

... talk page format... making eyes bleed... it hurts... make it stop... MastCell  05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If I could ... I screwed up the formatting somehow. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I like this format much better, thanks.  :) If you need any other assistance, please don't hesitate to ask! Also, I notice the talkpage is getting a bit long... If you'd like, I could set up an archive bot for you? That would automatically archive any old threads that had gone inactive for a certain period of time (30 days?) and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Let me know, --Elonka 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I had simply forgotten to break several center and font tags.

As for archiving, I'm happy with what I have here, but thanks just the same. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. Stick around. I rike your crome-from, scooby-do!--Buster7 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Rank roo Ruster.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)