User talk:Jim10701

Hi there, Jim10701. Thanks for chiming in on that Lucerne POV issue – it's good to know that someone agrees. Your post ("just how creepy reading about it here made me feel") made me laugh. Best, Pslide (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim I'm not sure I share your feeling about mentioning PI as Wittgenstein's most important work (arguably). Is it not arguable? Is it not his most important? Seems like you must object to the arguability bit, but it is less than certain in light of other unpublished material. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the excellent article Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words:

This page in a nutshell: Avoid using phrases such as "some people say" or any variations of the sort without providing sources.

Saying "which arguably contains his most important work" is the same as saying "which some people say contains his most important work." "Arguably" means "some people say," and therefore is a weasel word to be avoided. The solution (again from Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words):

Weasel words are words or statements that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a phrase or a sentence without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them.

For example, "Middletown, NJ is the nicest city in the world," is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Middletown, NJ is the nicest city in the world."

Although this is an improvement since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative:

• Who says that?
• When did they say it? Now?
• How many people think that? How many is some?
• What kind of people think that? Where are they?
• What kind of bias might they have?
• Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.

Following that advice, I tried deleting "arguably," but the statement "which contains his most important work" is too definite an opinion to stand on its own without a verifiable source of the opinion. The editor who added that statement had not given a source, and I did not have one, so I deleted the statement.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it do any good to mention that PI "is one of the most important works of our time" as in W T Jones's A History of Western Philosophy [Vol 5, p. 367]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "would it do any good," but there should be no problem at all with any properly referenced statement that's free of weasel words. Your suggestion sounds fine to me. However, if you're just paraphrasing the source, saying something like "of the 20th century" instead of "of our time" would be somewhat clearer, unless you plan to quote the source exactly (using quotation marks) and "of our time" is what it says.

I've answered your good question on my talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Lollardy#Caption_of_Wycliffe.2FLollard_picture.

You came to Talk:Southern American English with self-admitted ignorance and are now leaving the same but your off-the-cuff, self-righteous comment leads me to wonder whether you're a dick, a troll, or both. Either way, I don't think that sort of thing is appropriate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry I left you with that impression. That's not what I meant to express at all. I was just very frustrated with myself for my inability to get my point across, and in the midst of that funk I realized I'd been making a very big deal out of how a Wikipedia article characterizes my speech, which really doesn't matter at all. I was taking something personally that I had no business taking personally, and so I backed off. I meant it to be abrupt, because I wanted to put it past me as quickly as possible, but I did not mean it to be rude or personally offensive to you or anybody else. But obviously I screwed up, because I did offend you, and for that I'm sincerely sorry. Thank you very much for telling me; otherwise I never would have known I did it. If there's anything else I can do to make amends, please let me know.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JIm, I came upon this topic by accident and after having reviewed the facts, I would suggest that any incivility is clearly on the part of anyone calling someone a troll for making such an innocent remark on a talk page. I have similar experience from Wikipedians involved in linguistics. You have my sympathy and I see no reason why you felt you had to apologise so effusively.--Kudpung (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung,
Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to review the circumstances and leave this comment. It is very encouraging. But after several years, I'm coming reluctantly to the conclusion that Wikipedia and I just are not a good fit. This encounter with Aeusoes1 supports that conclusion but is by no means its sole cause.
I come to Wikipedia for information; I edit only if I come across information that is either incorrect or presented so poorly that it makes me cringe. I am not at all interested in participating in a colossal, million-headed blog, which I discover is what Wikipedia actually is. It is not an encyclopedia in any but an unacceptably loose sense.
Wikipedia functions by consensus of millions of contending egos, not by a serious, disciplined and orderly quest for truth. It will never be complete, it will never be stable, and it will never be a generally reliable source of information. It is not what I need or want. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has driven Encarta out of business, leaving Britannica as the only true online encyclopedia. I'm giving it a try now.
Thanks again for your support. I sincerely appreciate it. The effusive apology, by the way, is another typically Southern US phenomenon, like our poorly characterized speech. We simply cannot stand ever to make anybody unhappy.--Jim10701 (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, probably unwittingly, you have made above one of the most poignant and well phrased criticisms of the Wikipedia that I have ever read. It deserves that more people sit up and read it - it should serve as a knee-jerk to the community, esecially to the editor who insulted you. I still persevere here becausethe Wikipedia is now irreversible and I wish to correct at least some of the misinformation. I respect your wish not to get further involved, nevertheless I do hope you will continue to log in when you use the encyclopedia and watch your talk page because I may be inviting you to comment in the near future on a major policy issue. If you are interested, please see: User:Kudpung/The IPA saga. You will have all the facts from both sides before you and I will not attempt to influence your opinion. You are also welcome to contact me by email. You --Kudpung (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung,
I probably never should have signed up as a Wikipedia editor. I honestly have no interest whatsoever in doing it. Collaborative effort of any kind at all is not for me. If it were a thousand years ago, or if I'd been born in Greece or Ethiopia or India or some place where people still do it, and if I didn't like comfort so much (I think that's enough ifs to insure it can't actually happen), I'd be a hermit monk living alone in a cave on the side of a mountain.


I finally got around to reading about you on your user page, and it was quite an eye-opener. From your Thai-sounding (at least I got that right) user name, I assumed you were a non-native English speaker—how much wronger could that be? The other surprise is that you're only a year younger than I am. I'd been imagining a linguistically precocious South Asian in his mid-thirties frantically riffling through his English slang and idiom references!


Although I've been around as long as you have, I've had a very much different life. I've always hated travel, so I've rarely gone anywhere. I escaped the South, and that's as far as I cared to go. I couldn't deal with the stress of school, so I'm almost entirely self-educated. I have such an overwhelming fascination with the power and beauty of language that I haven't yet gotten past English and the conveniently dead classics. And my natural preference for being alone has meant a life lived primarily in my own company. I probably qualify as an eccentric. But I have an indiscriminate and practically insatiable curiosity that seems to grow only stronger the older I get. I have no interest in seeing the world in person, but my exploration of it and everything in and about it is constant. That's what brought me to Wikipedia.


Now that I'm writing this, it occurs to me that I may be the quintessential Wikipedia user. I am intelligent and curious about almost everything; my interest is unlimited in scope and insatiable in depth. I can spend hours winding my way through articles, opening dozens of links in separate windows and reading through them all eventually unless I get exhausted first and give it up.


So I am really a Wikipedia user, not an editor. As I said above, I got into editing only incidentally; it never was and still is not the real reason I'm here. So it is particularly disheartening for me as a Wikipedia user finally to see how defective Wikipedia is, and that the defects are fundamental and irreparable. It is an encyclopedia that caters to its creators instead of to its users, and that's a shame. By presenting itself to the world as an encyclopedia—a gigantic, free encyclopedia—it is driving out of existence legitimate and reliable encyclopedias that will not easily be replaced. It is one of the few genuinely tragic casualties of the internet, and the real losers aren't curious old farts like me but the kids who depend on Wikipedia as if it really were an encyclopedia because there's nothing else out there for them. No wonder they vandalize it!


I have no problem with Wikipedia's thriving as a playground in which editors with varying degrees of competence form their gangs and see who wins the particular mock battle they're caught up in at the moment; I only wish that were made plain to the billions of hapless readers who aren't in on the game. Only very recently did I come across a really nasty example of what that system produces. In my wanderings I stumbled somehow into the Creationism article, which is not a subject that interests me much. It startled me to find it using the word myth about Christian and other religions' beliefs, so I checked the talk page and found an ongoing, heated discussion about the word. I left my own comment about the wisdom of using such an emotionally charged word when talking about the religious beliefs of the majority of Wikipedia readers, but I don't expect the gang of thugs who emerged gleefully victorious with their consensus will pay any attention. Anyway, that was when I still cared about Wikipedia and had some hope for it. That incident more than any other is what convinced me that Wikipedia cannot be salvaged as a useful and reliable resource for the larger world outside its own contributors, which is the only world I'm interested in. (The quotation at the head of your user page from editor Jorge Stolfi says it brilliantly. Thanks for posting it.)


For some reason I feel an affinity with you in spite of our considerable differences, and I'm tempted to imagine an ongoing correspondence. But I've seen such glimmers before in the years since the internet emerged from the primordial slime from which all evolved and none was created, and they haven't materialized. I may really be too eccentric for such a congenial undertaking. But if you know of a way to exchange e-mail addresses safely in this godforsaken fishbowl with its mirrored surfaces reflecting the Wikipedia universe back in on itself, let me know and maybe we'll give it a shot.
--Jim10701 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I concur on all points Jim. Somewhere on either my user page or my talk page is "Send an e-mail to this user" It goes through the Wiki software and gets sent to my real email. It's quite safe. The issue that I am fomenting on my user sub-page will affect site-wide Wikipedia policy. No specific knowledge of the IPA, languages, or linguistics is required. I hope you'll take a look at it because much of it represents classic examples of the problems you describe above. I'm not worried about which sideof the fence you fall, but I would most certainly value your feedback, just in case I happen to be barking up the wrong tree and wasting mine and other people's time. I haven't asked for any other opinions yet.--Kudpung (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail message.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I relocated this discussion to the article's discussion page.

I also saw your comments here, and added my own thoughts to the discussion - see the talk page. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote : « On July 15, 2010, you edited the translation of the title "La Marseillaise" from "The [Song] of Marseille" to "The [Song of] Marseille". I do not know French well, but isn't the word Marseillaise an adjective, meaning of Marseille, in the style of Marseille, or something similar? (I'm thinking of Lyonnaise, Bordelaise and similar adjectives as examples.) .... »

My reply : No, it is a noun in this case, but your analogy is somewhat correct. (A parallel in English might be "New Yorker", as in "You are a New Yorker", or "A New Yorker sang this song," or perhaps, the automobile "Chrysler New Yorker".)

The « Marseillais » was the name (noun) of a military garrison stationed in Strasbourg at the time of the French Revolution. Our national anthem is the melody sang by these troops, which is named for them. It is not named for the city, per se.

It begins with the particle « La » and takes a feminine form « Marseillaise » because it refers to « une chanson », "a song", which is feminine. (This is analagous to the French word for "Halloween", which in French is « La Toussaint » which would appear to take a masculine particle, but instead takes the feminine particle « La » because it refers to « la fête », "the celebration".)

I could not find the demonym for Marseille, « Marseillaise », in my AMHER or OED. I also asked a native English speaker who told me that such a word does not exist. (On the other hand, the demonyms for Lyon, « Lyonnais » and « Lyonnaise », are English words that appear in the AMHER and OED and other English dictionaries as you wrote in your statement.) So, it simply does not exist. The English language also lacks demonyms for most other large cities in France, for example « Nantais » for Nantes, or « Toulousain » for Toulouse, etc.

So, my thought process was this: If the garrison had been known as "Le New Yorker" (masculine), the song would be called « La New Yorker » (feminine). The actual garrison was known as « Le Marseillais », hence, the song is called « La Marseillaise ». A demonym for Marseille does not exist in the English language, thus « The Marseille » or « The [Song of] Marseille » was my translation.

As you can clearly see by my grammatical errors, my English is not good as it should be. (Please accept my apologies.) If you are a native speaker of English and wish to change the text of the article, please feel free to do so. I can only do what I think is correct at the time, and anyone is free to change it! with my best regards to you, Charvex (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up : You wrote: «  ...you edited the translation of the title "La Marseillaise" from "The [Song] of Marseille" to "The [Song of] Marseille". » --- Actually, your question does not make sense to me on another, more fundamental level. The square brackets are an insertion for clarity. If we remove the square bracketed word "song" from "The [Song] of Marseille" (before I made the change), it becomes: « The of Marseille ». I do not think this is good English, do you??!! Tchao ! Charvex (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the conclusion of this conversation, go here.--Jim10701 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, an editor has contested this proposed deletion and as a contested PROD, the article has been restored on request. I haven't dug through the sources the editor provided with respect to the hoax question, but I did see at least one promising reference via GBooks, please discuss the hoax question further with that editor (there's more info on my talk page from him). Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane was born in Denver (her parents were from ri, dad was in the army). She left Denver at 10 days old to go to providence. 99.101.44.48 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) her sister Pam[reply]

Thanks I saw that you decided to use User:Koavf/Userboxes/Christian radical--what made you decide to use it and how did you come to the conclusion that you were a Christian radical? Please respond on my talk. Also, let me know if you're interested in collaborating on any articles related to this topic. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Justin. First of all, I'm sorry, but your talk page is much too full and active for me to be comfortable responding there. The prospect of trying to follow a conversation in such an environment is too daunting, but jumping back and forth between your page and mine would be even worse. I'll take advantage of the generous and thoughtful offer at the top of your talk page to keep the conversation here. I'll stick a {{Talkback}} on your page so you can easily jump back here.

I used your Christian radical box because it just felt right to me. I was not familiar with the term Christian radical, but when I decided finally to put something on my user page I was looking for boxes that might help characterize my rather peculiar form of Christianity, and yours was one of them.

When I read about what radical Christianity actually is, I don't necessarily see myself fully in that camp; but as just one of several disparate ways of describing me it works well enough. Where I definitely don't fit at all is in any church I have ever known or heard of, which seems fairly radical in itself. For me, being a Christian is an intensely personal experience, an intimate relationship between me and another person who is very real but who also happens currently to be invisible; it is not a practice or a social function or a set of rules: it's a relationship.

Thanks for the offer of collaboration. I'm not sure how to respond to it. I'm not a particularly collaborative sort of person, but I also don't want to close the door on the possibility. If at some time you come up with some specific proposition you'd like to run by me, I'll be glad to see how it seems at the time. I'm profoundly intuitive, hardly rational at all, so I rarely can predict how I'm going to respond to something before it happens.

Jim

Jim10701 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Jim, thanks for such a thoughtful response. I'll keep my eyes peeled here for a response if you want to keep talking.

How familiar are you with the Church of the Brethren? It's non-creedal, so it includes fundamentalists like the Brethren Revival Fellowship as well as the Progressive Brethren. My local Church of the Brethren is probably about the most liberal church in the state--more liberal than me, to be honest--but the emphasis is on personal conscience and the individual's commitment to God and community. I could go on and on.

To what extent are you familiar with Christian radicalism? Have you read (e.g.) The Kingdom of God Is Within You, or Kierkegaard, or Jacques Ellul, or Ammon Henacy?

Why do you identify at all with Christianity or with a radically personal commitment to it?

If any of this is too personal or this is too public a forum to discuss it, feel free to either not respond at all or respond via e-mail. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your questions, and they're not too personal to stay here, for now anyway. Some of them I can answer fairly easily, others possibly not so easily, but I'll give it a try.

I'm not at all familiar with the Church of the Brethren or either of the two groups you mentioned as being included in it. I haven't read the Tolstoy book or anything by Kierkegaard, and I've never even heard of either of the other two people you mentioned in the context of Christian radicalism. My identifying with that term may have been a mistake as far as its general use by other people. Although I think of myself as a radical Christian, it's possible that nobody else who does would recognize me as one at all.

I'm curious about many things, but theology is no longer one of them. For a long time I was looking hard for a truth I could live with, and I sampled lots of different religions and philosophies and practices (but didn't happen to come across the ones you've mentioned). Now I'm no longer looking, because I found what I was looking for.

I identify myself as a Christian because I am a Christian. I won't go into my whole story because it's a long one, made even longer because, as you can tell, I'm stuck in verbose mode and never say anything in few words. I was born again a long time ago and am very seriously committed to Jesus. I got disillusioned and hurt by some things I experienced and gave up on him for a long time, truly believing I was an atheist. Toward the end of that period is when I did the searching I mentioned before. I didn't even believe in God any more, and then one day out of the blue he said to me very clearly, "It's time to come home," and so I did.

I'm not sure I answered the questions you actually asked, but that's what I came up with so it'll have to do for now. I'm intelligent enough, but I really am not at all intellectual or well organized or logical. But I guess I am rational enough to realize that we're not talking Wikipedia stuff now and so probably should move over to e-mail. I've done that once before but it's been years and I've forgotten how to do it. You seem to know your way around here, though, so I'll let you make the move first and I'll follow. I'll leave a final {{Talkback}} on your page now.

Jim10701 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Click on the "M" in my signature, type it up, and hit the button--it will go to my inbox and you neither of us will see one another's actual e-mail addresses unless I choose to respond (as I recall--also, my e-mail address is not a secret.) I look forward to talking with you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Castel Sant'Angelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Right bank (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, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that what I did is unusual, but if you will look at the disambiguation page I linked to, you will see that it is unusual. In addition to the "Did you mean..." list, it gives a concise definition of "right bank" with reference to a river, since that definition doesn't merit its own full WP article.

The reader of the Castel Sant'Angelo article needs to be given that definition, since "right bank" is not in common use in much of the English-speaking world, including the US where I live. I am not an ignorant or unintelligent person, but I have to look up the term occasionally since I never encounter it in everyday life and so forget what it means after a while.

Perhaps it would be better to link instead to the Wiktionary entry for right bank, since it is less likely to become unuseful in the future than this disambiguation page. That's what I will do. Thanks very much for the notice.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. In all reality that definition shouldn't be in the disambig per WP:MOSDAB, but I'd say it does more good than harm, so I'll leave it be - but there's no guarantee that someone else won't take it out some day. So I'd say the wiktionary link is definitely the best course of action. Thanks for letting me know. --JaGa^talk 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment and correction of Hart Crane.

"Just imagine looking out your window directly on the East River with nothing intervening between your view of the Statue of Liberty, way down the harbour, and the marvelous beauty of Brooklyn Bridge close above you on your right! All of the great new skyscrapers of lower Manhattan are marshaled directly across [sic] from you, and there is a constant stream of tugs, liners, sail boats, etc in procession before you on the river! It’s really a magnificent place to live. This section of Brooklyn is very old, but all the houses are in splendid condition and have not been invaded by foreigners."

It's frustrating that the paper's archives are down at this time. My sense is that the 'sic' probably refers to the window not being "directly across" from lower Manhattan. The source being a local new York paper, they might want to be precise about such things. I'd say in WP terms it's not such a big deal. I'm not sure about the MOS usage of 'sic' in article texts. I think it's discouraged anyway. I think it was me that added the original text in (a few years ago). I hope that clarifies things a bit. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You raised legitimate issues concerning the page Michael_Kay_(software_engineer) and I have responded to those issues on the talk page. I would be grateful if you would read my comments and make constructive suggestions for a way forward. Do you think it should be deleted and that the links from articles such as XSLT should be removed? Mhkay (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response here.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's change that lede. Agadant is a good editor and responsible for much of the article, but he needs to relise it can be improved upon, and by other people too, not just him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Van_Morrison#The_Gatekeeper_and_the_current_status_of_Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.18.188.249 (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up on that article nine months ago when I got the response from Agadant you mentioned in your own comment there, with which I agree wholeheartedly. I still agree that the lead section needs to change, but I am unwilling to engage in a war with a person I consider not a good editor but (Redacted). Although I very much appreciate your position and your support for sanity in that article, and I wish you all the best in making headway against such a relentless opponent, I am unwilling to have any further contact at all with (Redacted).

I will put a {{Talkback|Jim10701}} on your talk page, but since I'm unfamiliar with how anonymous accounts work I don't know if you'll ever see it. Maybe you'll check back here for my response. If you do: Thanks again for the very refreshing breath of sanity and support in an insane article. I am very grateful. I truly wish you well in trying to fix the article. I regret I cannot join you in it, but I've been bitten once too often by (Redacted).

Good luck.

Jim

Jim10701 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from ANI:

How could any one, even a kindergarten pupil, not consider that calling another editor "a mad tormented dog", "not a good editor but a psychopath" and the misrepresentation? (I won't say lie) that the other person was 'warring', not worthy of apologizing for, when the offended person states that they were unjustifiably attacked and feel damaged by it and would feel much better if the guilty party admitted they went too far and said "I'm sorry". I would jump at the chance to apologize to anyone I said such harsh remarks about, if I ever did. Agadant (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim, I'd suggest just deleting this last comment from your talk page. It amounts to trolling.--v/r - TP 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep bothering you with this stuff, but do you mean that I should delete the entry the editor left right above this one of yours, the one that starts "Copied from ANI:"? If that is what you mean, I'd be more comfortable striking it out than deleting it. Would that be okay? As you can see above, I tried {{Redacted}} on my offensive comments, and I like that a lot better: it shows that something was removed but doesn't leave it there to be read through the strikeout. I even redacted the editor's name, in case I inadvertently left anything offensive. If you confirm that it is the comment above yours that I should remove, that's how I'll deal with it too.--Jim10701 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete comments off your talk page if you want. You can strike it too if you want. But when someone trolls my talk page, on purpose or inadvertently, I just remove it instead of responding or striking.--v/r - TP 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since evidently it's my call, I think I'll leave it there. If that venting helped the editor to resolve this problem and let go of hurt feelings, I wouldn't feel right censoring it.--Jim10701 (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jim... I consider that as good as an apology and I never hold on to hurt feelings. Agadant (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Agadant (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - as you know there is a report on the administrator's noticeboard concerning a comment you made about another user. I looked through your contributions and you seem like a rational hard working really smart guy. So I thought maybe talking to you might resolve this problem before someone throws down a block. You made a comment (as you know) right above where you said "enslaved in a very narrow slice of life here at Wikipedia", "cannot function at all outside that tiny environment", "unbalanced people here", "the mad, tormented dog who stands guard over it." I doubt I have to tell you that this is a bit offensive. However, what I do need to say is that there is a policy against it called WP:NPA which prohibits personal attacks. Now, the reason for this is not because it hurts feelings. On some level, folks need to be adults and have thick skin. The reason we have that is because this is a collaborative editing environment and it makes it very difficult to work with editors when there is name calling. Wikipedia could not function if editors would allowed to throw insults. It would make it a very hostile environment and the articles would suffer for it. I would like to ask you to please redact your statements above. If you can find a collegial way of solving this issue with Agadant, that would be best. If not, there are places to work it out such as dispute resolution and the mediation cabal. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.--v/r - TP 21:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the same question on the admin noticeboard: What do you mean by "redact it"? Do you mean just delete the offending comments? Is that all there is to it? I won't do anything until you clarify. Thanks. And thanks for not treating me like a monster. I'll try to emulate that, although maybe I blew it already by using the word monster.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on ANI as well, but you can either delete the comments, use the <s>strikeout</s> tags, or use the {{redacted}} template.--v/r - TP 22:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in navigating my way out of this mess. Since my desire was to avoid further contact with that editor, I clearly did it the wrong way even from a selfish standpoint. I couldn't figure out how to use {{redacted}} (which seems to be an administrators' tool anyway), and deleting the offensive stuff seems cowardly, so I used the strikeout tags. I hope all is laid to rest now. Oh... Do I need to strike out your quotations of my comments in this section? I don't think it seems right to edit another editor's comment, so I won't do that unless you tell me to.--Jim10701 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You don't need to, no. Redaction is an administrative tool, but the use of the {{redacted}} template is for anyone. All you do is replace your comments with {{subst:redacted}} and it produces (Redacted). I left another comment above.--v/r - TP 23:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep this discussion in one place so we and other editors can better follow it, I have moved the comments posted in this section and in User talk:Wolfdog#Mercutio pronunciations to the article's talk page, in the section titled Pronunciation. Any further comments should be made there.--Jim10701 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in new Template:US states and territories. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Millionaire (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashback (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) 11:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your feedback about this article and I also saw that similar concerns were expressed on the article's talk page. So I have completely rewritten the article. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think now? Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm, I'm, I'm speechless... almost. I have never seen an article improve so dramatically so fast! The article is about as good as it can get now, and just a few hours ago it was one of the worst I've ever seen. I rarely find an article that's so overwhelmingly awful that I can't even take a few picks at it, but this one was. You're fantastic. Thanks so much! And thanks for letting me know. You've made my day.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Thanks. ChemNerd (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Some People#Requested move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim10701. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the dab page as you raised, well spotted. But you'll now need to edit (invert) the RM template if you wish the dab moved from position as created to cover the dragonball redirect. It will take 10-20 minutes for any edits saved to your template on Talk page to be picked up by the WP:RM main page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying I need to do now. I don't know what "invert the RM template" means. Can you be more specific, like give me step-by-step instructions? Either that, or do it yourself if you'd rather. If you're saying that it will be taken care of automatically in 10–20 minutes (if that's what "picked up by the WP:RM" page means), it'll take longer than that for me just to figure out what I should be doing now.

I've never done this kind of thing before (I did make a similar request for another page, and it was accepted, but after making the first request I was never asked to do anything else). I obviously don't even understand the language of this process yet, which is why I made it a move request instead of doing it myself. I'm pretty clueless about this and don't even know where to look for help. Thanks.—Jim10701 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I'll do it, check the page in 2 minutes. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Thanks a lot.—Jim10701 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Your comments at the Rod McKuen site, I wonder if You would be up for working on the Coventry Patmore page. I have made a few comments on the talk page but have refrained from changing the article proper.Kdammers (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are retired and all, but you may find this enlightening:

http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/Future-In-The-Past.htm

It's also called the Past Prospective, but Googling that turns up far too much unrelated fluff, and actual linguistics publications seem to prefer | Future-in-the-Past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlerin (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]