User talk:JimWae/Archives/2005

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Administrator

How can you tell whether a random Wikipedian is an administrator?? Georgia guy 23:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

King's "plagurism"

All I see is character assassination based on claimed inadequate referencing by a student according to standards apparently neither taught to King nor demanded of his acedemic work. King wanted a doctorate. The proffessors wanted a paying student. Neither were trying to turn King into some kind of expert in documentation creation. They helped educate a man who has had a positive influence on America greater than all the nobodies critisizing his referencing style all put together. 4.250.138.208 07:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not character assassination - all involved agree that King lifted whole sections from another paper. It is not character assassination to uphold standards. The article states that King "might" have believed it was OK, but that does not make it OK. The world is not filled only with angels & beasts. It gave me no pleasure to work on that article --JimWae 07:55, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

The effect is character assassination. Discrediting an important figure is a known propaganda technique. People remember things without remembering where they got them. King wrote as taught and rewarded (by grades). Redefining "standards" different than that applied by the teacher who gave and graded the "assignment" after the man is dead and can't defend himself is pathetic manipulation of public opinion by known and documented propaganda techniques. Even the chief of the FBI engaged in character assisination against King and you are going to argue no one took up the cause of battling the King legacy or that this isn't exactly the sort of smear campaign one would expect? Don't be naive. 4.250.168.91 07:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. - authorship issues

List of cities in United States

Jim, please consider responding to my points about your retaining of the list of cities, with their populations and regional locations. I wonder why a list of all 50 states—perhaps including their populations and regional locations—is not more important. (Consitutionally it would be ...). Tony 05:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought you thought it was me. I just fixed the one that was there and expressed my thoughts on keeping it - knowing someone had suggested o/w. I do not think lists make articles long - paragraphs do. There is already a list of states - in a template--JimWae 06:13, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Sure, but length is less important than evenness of detail, in my view. That's one of the benefits of W's system of daughter articles. Tony 07:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vegas & New Orleans do not even appear in the article. Philly would appear only in a non-tabular mind-numbing listing of seaports. Grand Canyon appears only as a link. Chicago would appear only because of its airport. Not all the global cities have been listed yet either. Btw, I did not put the list back in - as far as I can tell it was never removed --JimWae 08:16, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

I do not see anyone else commenting agreement that the list needs to be removed --JimWae 18:22, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long

An excellent solution! Thanks for that. Bobblewik 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could help --JimWae 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dueling edits - JFK

I think our edits got in the way of each other on the John F. Kennedy article. I was reverting an inappropriate edit by an anonymous user. You might double-check your recent edits that I might have accidentally reverted. (Strange it didn't give me a conflict warning.) -- Kbh3rd 21:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting edits - Franklin D. Roosevelt

You reverted my edits for no apparent reason, restoring several errors. I'll chalk this up to an innocent error on your part, as it looks you are editing the entire page instead of just the section you are working on. Furthermore, the use of the word "democrat" was preserved in the text, but moved outside the parenthetical remark, which disrupted the text flow. I've removed it since it seemed to bother you, but feel free to add it back in wherever you want. --Viriditas 09:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It was my intention to restore all your edits. I had just spent about 10 minutes finding all those links to solitary years and had to make a choice. Have you noticed I did restore several of your edits, and left a note in edit summary about difficulty with your moving democrat so that it modified California instead of the governor? I think only thus/and is left --JimWae 09:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, is there something wrong with just editing section by section? By editing the entire page, you are wiping out the work of other editors. Perhaps this could all be be avoided by using the "in use" tag. --Viriditas 09:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding the tag now. Please remove it whenever you are finished. --Viriditas 09:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - I've not seen how to use that tag yet - neither did I expect to get a cramp in my hand from deleting all the [ [ ] ]s - some of which you put back in, btw. Are we clear now? --JimWae 09:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm about to log off anyway. If you want to use variations (time, date) of the tag in the future to prevent this from happening, see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance. Good night. --Viriditas 09:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold

Thanks for the NPOV edit for Benedict Arnold. I'd reverted the "British hero" edit w/o looking farther back to see that there was much better wording than the equally POV, in retrospect, "American traitor". I got a nastygram on my talk page from the presumed anglophile I'd reverted instructing me not to change it again. So we'll see how long your edit lasts. ;-) Kbh3rd 05:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

solitary years

I saw your edit comment on American Civil War and followed the link to MoS. The reference to solitary years is inconclusive. The article starts by showing examples of solitary year references as links. Then, in the context of date-reformatting preferences, says reformatting does not work when the year is alone and that generally it isn't used. If there was meant to be a prohibition on the practice, they would have written that page rather differently. I followed their example link to 1974 and found it an interesting page, so see no harm when authors wish to point to year articles for context. Saying that July 1, 1863, warrants a year link and that 1864 does not is logically inconsistent anyway. Hal Jespersen 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Look here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formattingThe linking of full dates is so that date preferences work

  If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there's a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.

• This sort of date linking is relevant

  In 1828 and 1832 the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states.

• --JimWae 01:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying that indiscriminant linking is bad, a sentiment to which I can relate. (I wonder why you thought 1861-1865 in the ACW article weren't relevant. I would assert that anything in the range of, say, 1858 to 1870 would be relevant in an article about the war.) I will take this under advisement. However, I also believe in visual consistency. If there are, say, 4 dates linked in a paragraph or section, I will link the fifth regardless of strong relevancy. (This is similar to the reason why I will link the same year multiple times when it appears joined with day/month combinations.) Hal Jespersen

Award for diligent editing

For diligently editing articles to ensure they remain accurate, well written and encyclopedic, in particular the Jesus article, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. RossNixon 10:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Washingtons stated as a escopalian.

It can't be proven he was a deist. He was officially a member of the escopalian church. If you feel that he may have been deist include it in the body of the article. Please do not post it as a fact. You are blurring the line between your personal view and fact which deserves a ban. Please use wikipedia for facts only. Please do not engage in an edit war because I will just keep undoing everything you did unless you can prove to me that your edits are correct with substaintial evidence. Please come to me first to discuss it or I will have to report you. I do not mind putting Washington as a deist if it can be proven. But as of now it simply can not be so it shouldnt be stated as a fact. Also can you please verify that he abandoned his prayer book? Thank you,

JJstroker

Replies to Stroker (It seems all the above are by him)

If this person took the time to look for the entire proclamation, he would see very clearly that it was NOT a speech at all - it was a written proclamation - as it states at the end that AL has put his hand to it. Congress (see first paragraph of proclamation) had passed a resolution that the president issue a proclamation (imagine that happening today?). Lincoln had the option of vetoing the resolution or signing it. Vetoing it would just lead to harsh debate. What was not written by Congress in the proclamation was written by Seward.

• As such, it is neither a quote nor in any way representative of Lincoln.
• Stroker seems to think that I am required to report to him & make sure he agrees with what has been in the article for months before I return it to its NPOV place.
• Then he tells me not to engage in an revert war because he will revert everything himself
• Stroker also seems to think that if he disagrees with anything in wikipedia, he can insist on proof to the standard of proof approaching 2+2=4. There is plenty of EVIDENCE that both Lincoln & Washington were deists - sources for which include works available at:
  • Excerpts from The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, 1936, by Franklin Steiner
  • Six Historic Americans by John Remsburg, 1906, examines religious views of Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, & Grant
  • Lincoln excerpt from The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
• It is quite clear that Washington was NOT an OFFICIAL member of any church
• As for the prayer book, (a book of prayer for every day & evening of the week - which goes from Sunday to Thursday only) it turns out much worse for JJStroker - the Smithsonian refused to accept it for lack of authenticity. [1] [2] It was Stroker who put it in the article & I suggest he take some of his own advice & report himself for vandalism for including it as fact.--JimWae 01:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It would seem that Stroker "is blurring the line between her personal view and fact which deserves a ban". Or was she ignorant of the two references you cite when she entered those "facts" about the prayer book? David D. (Talk) 07:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Staten Island

--Hi, I posted a message to you on the New York city talk page under the conversation on Staten Island. --Jleon 12:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Linking Dates

Regardless of the motivation for linking all dates, the end result is that it can make a good article look like a stinking pile of garbage. I side with the style guide on this. Nandesuka 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[[3]]. Likewise, the style guide is clear: 'To determine whether a link to a year, decade, century etc. is appropriate in a specific case, consider the dynamic tension between the guidelines Make only links relevant to the context and Build the web." In other words, blindly linking those dates is wrong. And, as I said, makes articles look like garbage. Nandesuka 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reply does not address this situation accurately. We are talking about what the style guide calls a full date, not a solitary year. See reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christmas#Snipping_extraneous_links --JimWae 01:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't make the promise you want. Readability is a more important concern than keeping the preferences happy. Most readers of Wikipedia don't even have accounts, or preferences. We are an encyclopedia for our readers first, and littering an article with 8,314,144 blue links is, in my opinion, absolutely unacceptable. Nandesuka 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So you oppose the style guideline? But part of its purpose is to settle disputes - and the guide is clear that day & month get linked. Enabling preferences is a courtesy to the reader - and an incentive to make an account. You are needlessly exaggerating! 12 (or possibly less) December 25s is far from 8,314,144 --JimWae 01:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesse James Bias

This is one of the least neutral articles I've read in a while. The essay needs to be rewritten to stick to the facts of Jesse James life. At the moment it portrays the Union as something approaching the Third Reich

Most of these POV insertions (including assuming that he faked his death) were made Nov 21 by [4]. I suggest we revert to the last by me on Nov 21 & work from there --JimWae 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the previous article which has now been redacted was biased and or portrayed "Union as something approaching the Third Reich." Even if it does, so what? Isn't it a point of view to say it wasn't? More importantly, by removing any such discussions also removes the motivations behind the James-Younger gang, removes academic research into the clandestine organizations which backed the James-Younger gang, and removes discussion of causes behind what appear to be unexplainable acts of the James-Younger gang.

The fact remains that Union troops and their abolitionist militia auxilleries known as Red Legs have the largest number of atrocities ascribed to them in what was truly an atrocious civil war within the state of Missouri. Records of the period are distinct in representing the wholesale pillaging, burning, rape, and murder of Confederate sympathizers in Missouri. The animosity the Union forces in Missouri engendered, eventually caused later Missouri governments to conduct Congressional investigations which were authoritative in judging Union activities during and after the war as nothing short of crimes against humanity.

Additionally, it is clear from growing research into the James-Younger gang and other groups after the war, that there were socio-economic reasons for the increase in outlawery. These were rooted in Union sectional, political, and class imperialism against the Southern sectional, political, and class structure. By refusing to discuss actions by Northern interests which illuminate this socio-economic oppression, we fail to understand the reasons behind the growth of groups such as the James-Younger gang in post-bellum America.

Rather than impugn the James character with surreptitious remarks about his family such as "hemp-growing...slave owning...timid step-father", which have really no baring on characteristics which might illuminate the James-Younger gang activities, let us stick to real facts such as that the James family were prosperious minor plantation owners of the gentry class, were literate and educated, had helped settle and pacify the region for American civilization, but then had that honor, wealth, and status literally stolen and degraded in a vicious civil war which left Missouri in ruins. Such an illumination would much more reveal the motivations behind Jesse James than that his step-father was a timid hemp grower.

Although the most recent edit has included good biographical information regarding James-Younger activities, they fail to mention that much of the James-Younger activities were targeted upon "scallawag" and "carpetbagger" institutions and individuals. For instance, the notorious Northfield raid was targeted upon a bank owned by two villified Reconstruction Union occupation military governors who were heavily tied to Republican Party establishment figures, especially those which were developing a stranglehold on economic resources in the nation and were attempting to expand that control into areas such as Missouri.

Additionally, the failure of the Northfield raid, the demise of the gang's members, and the dissappearence of the James brothers coincides with a drop-off in other outlaw acts by other gangs. Considering the likely use of counter-intelligence and criminal investigation methods by the aforementioned Republican establishment against a political background of ending Reconstruction government, it is highly likely that the James gang and others ceased operating simply because of larger socio-economic factors involving successful implementation of political oppression techniques. In other words, the James gang was part of an organized effort to resist Northern interests in the Post-bellum period, and that resistence became increasingly tenuous as political factors changed. By ignoring those factors we fail to read the underlying ground upon which the James-Younger gang travelled in it's resistence.

By ignoring Union atrocities we fail to understand the motivation of the James-Younger gang. By censoring data regarding Confederate Partisan Ranger activities to fit a prescribed political viewpoint we fail to read the networks and methodologies which made outlawery successful in the post-bellum period. By inserting ridiculously inane remarks about "hemp growing" and "timidity" or other such slights, it is revealed were the real bias originates from. Lets look at history with unvarnished eyes, not the cynical ones of a propogandist. Consequently I suggest we work from the last edit and build upon that which includes the best biographical data from several viewpoints and sources.-American_cavalier@yahoo.com