User talk:JimWae and 1960 VFL season: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
BrianBeahr (talk | contribs)
3,336 edits
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox VFL Premiership Season
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| year = 1960
|maxarchivesize = 700K
| image =
|algo = old(400d)
| imagesize =
|archive = User talk:JimWae/Archives/%(year)d
| caption =
| teams = 12
| premiers = {{AFL Mel}}
| count = 11th
| minor premiers = {{AFL Mel}}
| mpcount = 8th
| matches =
| top goal scorer = [[Ron Evans]] <small>({{AFL Ess}})</small>
| brownlow medalist = [[John Schultz]] <small>({{AFL Foo}})</small>
}}
}}
Results and statistics for the '''[[VFL/AFL]] season of 1960'''.


==Premiership season==
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User_talk:JimWae/Archive Archive List]
In 1960, the VFL competition consisted of twelve teams of 18 on-the-field players each, plus two substitute players, known as the '''19th man''' and the '''20th man'''. A player could be substituted for any reason; however, once substituted, a player could not return to the field of play under any circumstances.


Teams played each other in a home-and-away season of 18 rounds; matches 12 to 18 were the "home-and-way reverse" of matches 1 to 7.
{| id="userpage" align="center" style="text-align:center; border: {{{border-s|1}}}px solid {{{border-c|#000FFF}}}; background-color:{{{background|lightblue}}}"
|- padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
|style="font-size: 85%"| User:JimWae : '''[[user talk:JimWae|Talk to me!]] | [[special:contributions/JimWae|Check on my contributions!]]| [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=JimWae&site=en.wikipedia.org Check my edit count!]| [[Special:Emailuser/JimWae|Email Me!]]'''
|}


Once the 18 round home-and-away season had finished, the 1960 VFL ''Premiers'' were determined by the specific format and conventions of the [[Early_VFL_Final_systems#The_Page-McIntyre_system_.281931.29|"Page-McIntyre system"]].
{| align=center cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #C0C0C0;"
| style="background: #686868; color: #000000; font-size: 10pt; height: 45px; padding-right: 1px; text-align: center; width: 45px;" | [[Image:Editor - silver star.jpg|46px]]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #000000; border: 1px solid #686868;" | This editor is a '''Veteran Editor III''', and is entitled to display this '''[[Wikipedia:Service awards#Veteran Editor III (or Splendid and Majestic Tutnum)|Silver Editor Star]].'''
|}


===Alterations to 1960 match fixtures===
<br clear=left>
Round 1 of the 1960 competition was a split round, with 3 matches on Easter Saturday (16 April) and three matches on Easter Monday (18 April).


Round 2 of the competition was also a split round, with four matches scheduled for the Saturday (23 April) and two for the Monday (ANZAC Day, 25 April). The four Saturday matches were postponed because of the extremely wet conditions.
<div style="background-color:#99ffcc; padding:10px 20px 10px 20px; text-align:left; width: 80%; margin:0 auto 5px auto">
*If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
*If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.
*If appropriate, I will move talk from here to relevant article talk page, so that everyone can share in the discussion.</div>


Despite pressure from the Victorian Premier, [[Henry Bolte]], the VFL refused to play the four postponed matches on ANZAC Day (which, by custom, would have contributed to "patriotic funds"), and scheduled the postponed matches for the following Saturday (30 April). As a consequence of this delay all of the season's matches from round 3 to the Grand Final were actually played a week later than had been originally scheduled.
<!--Message bar-->
<div class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 120%; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; border: 2px solid #666666; background: #22ff44; text-align: center">
'''[{{fullurl:User talk:JimWae|action=edit&section=new}} Click here to leave me a new message.<p>Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.]'''
</div>


== Archives ==
===Round 1===
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''12.21 (93)'''
| {{AFL Haw}}
| 9.12 (66)
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 23,000
| 16 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''11.14 (80)'''
| {{AFL Fit}}
| 3.7 (25)
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 39,927
| 16 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL SM}}'''
| '''17.12 (114)'''
| {{AFL StK}}
| 8.15 (63)
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 28,100
| 16 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''14.15 (99)'''
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 5.14 (44)
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 36,766
| 18 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Foo}}'''
| '''15.7 (97)'''
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 10.6 (66)
| [[Western Oval]]
| 24,982
| 18 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''14.14 (98)'''
| '''{{AFL Ric}}'''
| '''14.14 (98)'''
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 31,000
| 18 April 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 2===
*[[User talk:JimWae/archive1]]
{{start box}}
*[[User talk:JimWae/Canada]]
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
*[[User talk:JimWae/Lincoln, Civil War, etc.]]
| '''Home team'''
*[[User talk:JimWae/Philosophy, Space, Time, Ethics]]
| '''Home team score'''
*[[User talk:JimWae/Articles dealing with religion]]
| '''Away team'''
*[[User talk:JimWae/Formatting]]
| '''Away team score'''
*[[User talk:JimWae/Archives/2007/January]]
| '''Venue'''
*[[User talk:JimWae/Archives/2006]]
| '''Crowd'''
*[[User talk:JimWae/Archives/2005]]
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL StK}}
| 5.18 (48)
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''10.12 (72)'''
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 30,000
| 25 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''9.17 (71)'''
| {{AFL Car}}
| 9.10 (64)
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 33,815
| 25 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Gee}}'''
| '''20.14 (134)'''
| {{AFL SM}}
| 14.6 (90)
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 16,370
| 30 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 6.17 (53)
| '''{{AFL Foo}}'''
| '''14.15 (99)'''
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 20,150
| 30 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 5.15 (45)
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''25.20 (170)'''
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 31,000
| 30 April 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Haw}}
| 6.16 (52)
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''7.13 (55)'''
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 30,000
| 30 April 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 3===
*[[Special:Prefixindex/User_talk:JimWae|Talk Archive Finder]]
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Nor}}'''
| '''5.12 (42)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 3.8 (26)
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 9,000
| 7 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''16.14 (110)'''
| {{AFL SM}}
| 6.10 (46)
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 23,135
| 7 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Fit}}
| 5.11 (41)
| '''{{AFL Gee}}'''
| '''8.7 (55)'''
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 13,802
| 7 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Haw}}
| 6.9 (45)
| '''{{AFL Foo}}'''
| '''6.17 (53)'''
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 16,000
| 7 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''11.10 (76)'''
| {{AFL Col}}
| 11.8 (74)
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 30,000
| 7 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL StK}}
| 5.11 (41)
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''7.3 (45)'''
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 18,700
| 7 May 1960
{{end box}}


== Question ==
===Round 4===
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 4.14 (38)
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''9.5 (59)'''
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 12,795
| 14 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''7.13 (55)'''
| {{AFL Mel}}
| 2.7 (19)
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 28,263
| 14 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''5.18 (48)'''
| {{AFL Haw}}
| 5.7 (37)
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 11,066
| 14 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL SM}}'''
| '''11.12 (78)'''
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 5.8 (38)
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 7,000
| 14 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 5.6 (36)
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''6.11 (47)'''
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 7,500
| 14 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 4.2 (26)
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''4.11 (35)'''
| [[Western Oval]]
| 24,302
| 14 May 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 5===
How can the zip code "not" signify that Forest Park is part of Woodhaven, Queens. Isn't that the purpose of zip codes?
{{start box}}
Thanks for all your input in this article. Its looking better than ever. Since I have included all of the bus routes, is it possible if you can add hyperlinks to them? I wanted to just tell you that I need to be aware of small typos. I can't seem to clearly see what I am typing because of the small size of the font.
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ric}}'''
| '''7.5 (47)'''
| {{AFL SM}}
| 4.7 (31)
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 12,500
| 21 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Haw}}
| 5.7 (37)
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''7.15 (57)'''
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 12,500
| 21 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''11.9 (75)'''
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 5.6 (36)
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 17,102
| 21 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Nor}}'''
| '''10.6 (66)'''
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 7.9 (51)
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 8,500
| 21 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''5.9 (39)'''
| {{AFL Col}}
| 4.13 (37)
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 28,600
| 21 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''17.13 (115)'''
| {{AFL Car}}
| 11.14 (80)
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 26,300
| 21 May 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 6===
*Let's do any furthEr discussion at [[Talk:Woodhaven, Queens]]--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''17.22 (124)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 4.8 (32)
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 27,249
| 28 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 6.11 (47)
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''10.5 (65)'''
| [[Western Oval]]
| 22,126
| 28 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 7.6 (48)
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''9.8 (62)'''
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 8,600
| 28 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''8.7 (55)'''
| {{AFL Ess}}
| 6.14 (50)
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 25,632
| 28 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL SM}}'''
| '''12.8 (80)'''
| {{AFL Col}}
| 11.12 (78)
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 27,000
| 28 May 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Gee}}'''
| '''17.17 (119)'''
| {{AFL Car}}
| 10.14 (74)
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 16,589
| 28 May 1960
{{end box}}


== Thank you ==
===Round 7===
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ess}}
| 9.15 (69)
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''10.11 (71)'''
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 32,500
| 4 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Col}}
| 12.16 (88)
| '''{{AFL Nor}}'''
| '''16.8 (104)'''
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 23,740
| 4 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Car}}
| 11.13 (79)
| '''{{AFL SM}}'''
| '''13.13 (91)'''
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 24,465
| 4 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''14.15 (99)'''
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 14.13 (97)
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 16,500
| 4 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 6.13 (49)
| '''{{AFL Foo}}'''
| '''11.15 (81)'''
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 16,000
| 4 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''13.12 (90)'''
| {{AFL Fit}}
| 9.12 (66)
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 26,250
| 4 June 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 8===
Thanks for helping me with the Zeno article. I'm more enthusiastic then skilled, and I'm grateful that someone else seems to care. [[User:Le Blue Dude|Le Blue Dude]] ([[User talk:Le Blue Dude|talk]]) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 13.12 (90)
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''13.14 (92)'''
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 17,500
| 11 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''13.18 (96)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 11.15 (81)
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 12,000
| 11 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''10.15 (75)'''
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 6.8 (44)
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 35,539
| 11 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL SM}}
| 13.12 (90)
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''13.13 (91)'''
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 21,500
| 11 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 11.17 (83)
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''14.10 (94)'''
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 24,119
| 11 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''16.14 (110)'''
| {{AFL Car}}
| 10.13 (73)
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 29,853
| 11 June 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 9===
*Yeh, the article needed a drastic cut - have to be cautious about re-adding things. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Fit}}
| 10.8 (68)
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''16.14 (110)'''
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 23,233
| 18 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''13.10 (88)'''
| {{AFL SM}}
| 12.15 (87)
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 21,000
| 18 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''18.12 (120)'''
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 8.15 (63)
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 13,897
| 18 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL StK}}
| 7.13 (55)
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''8.19 (67)'''
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 23,900
| 18 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ric}}'''
| '''11.17 (83)'''
| '''{{AFL Gee}}'''
| '''12.11 (83)'''
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 13,000
| 18 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 8.19 (67)
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''10.14 (74)'''
| [[Western Oval]]
| 28,098
| 18 June 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 10===
Jim Wae,
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 6.5 (41)
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''12.11 (83)'''
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 17,934
| 25 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''11.14 (80)'''
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 7.8 (50)
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 26,979
| 25 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL SM}}
| 11.7 (73)
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''13.6 (84)'''
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 22,300
| 25 June 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''20.10 (130)'''
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 15.18 (108)
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 15,747
| 2 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''12.4 (76)'''
| {{AFL StK}}
| 10.14 (74)
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 25,700
| 2 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 12.12 (84)
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''14.13 (97)'''
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 28,000
| 2 July 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 11===
Thanks for the link re: blogs as sources for wikipedia (on the BCE page). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.163.90.5|24.163.90.5]] ([[User talk:24.163.90.5|talk]]) 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 7.12 (54)
| '''{{AFL SM}}'''
| '''8.9 (57)'''
| [[Western Oval]]
| 15,322
| 9 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''13.16 (94)'''
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 10.13 (73)
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 20,915
| 9 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''14.15 (99)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 4.18 (42)
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 16,500
| 9 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Haw}}
| 10.9 (69)
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''12.14 (86)'''
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 18,000
| 9 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 12.11 (83)
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''14.14 (98)'''
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 15,000
| 9 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''9.17 (71)'''
| {{AFL Car}}
| 6.22 (58)
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 29,741
| 9 July 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 12===
== Series Solution to Zenos Paradox ==
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''11.13 (79)'''
| {{AFL SM}}
| 9.3 (57)
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 24,700
| 16 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 9.19 (73)
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''15.13 (103)'''
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 9,600
| 16 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Gee}}'''
| '''11.13 (79)'''
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 8.4 (52)
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 14,388
| 16 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Haw}}
| 10.13 (73)
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''16.11 (107)'''
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 23,500
| 16 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''17.10 (112)'''
| {{AFL Col}}
| 13.18 (96)
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 30,080
| 16 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 8.8 (56)
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''15.20 (110)'''
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 13,500
| 16 July 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 13===
Why do you keep removing the external link to this article. Regardless of what your personal views are on the matter, both Zeno and Aristotle were mathematicians and the mathematical argument is a valid one. The argument presented on Wikipedia involving the use of time is a flaccid and devoid argument for the problem was not proposed in that dimension. It was proposed with infinitely divisible intervals and the only way to represent infinite intervals is with the concept infinity, divided by the subset of each interval. The proof presented is not historically incorrect, it is not semantically incorrect and it is more relevant then the philosophical debates which are linked to regarding this topic. I can only presume that you have no grounding in calculus or have wish to continue the philosophical debate as a matter of course to add some sense of mystique to Zenos ideas.
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''6.13 (49)'''
| {{AFL StK}}
| 6.9 (45)
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 42,935
| 23 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Foo}}'''
| '''9.10 (64)'''
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 9.8 (62)
| [[Western Oval]]
| 14,133
| 23 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''16.16 (112)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 10.10 (70)
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 17,000
| 23 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Col}}
| 7.15 (57)
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''7.16 (58)'''
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 18,637
| 23 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Car}}
| 5.10 (40)
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''12.12 (84)'''
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 26,796
| 23 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL SM}}'''
| '''10.20 (80)'''
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 11.13 (79)
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 8,350
| 23 July 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 14===
If you prefer, I can incorporate the proof into the article with a reference to the proof, if this will satisfy your incessant need to undo edits which are relevant to the matter at hand. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.168.186.25|124.168.186.25]] ([[User talk:124.168.186.25|talk]]) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 5.9 (39)
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''9.21 (75)'''
| [[Western Oval]]
| 16,794
| 30 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''9.11 (65)'''
| {{AFL Ess}}
| 6.9 (45)
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 39,110
| 30 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Car}}
| 10.12 (72)
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''11.17 (83)'''
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 24,684
| 30 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 9.13 (67)
| '''{{AFL Nor}}'''
| '''12.7 (79)'''
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 8,500
| 30 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL SM}}
| 10.10 (70)
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''16.13 (109)'''
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 18,000
| 30 July 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 7.11 (53)
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''14.11 (95)'''
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 15,022
| 30 July 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 15===
*I removed it ONCE as part of other vandalism, the second edit removed the word BLOG from the title for the link. BLOGs are NOT [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Additionally, nobody can disprove "the '''existence''' of the Dichotomy Paradox" - as your "My Philosophy" blog states. So, yes it should be removed entirely from the article, and I will do that soon. If you think the content of the blog includes relevant, reliably-sourced material missing from the article, then by all means add it --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
{{start box}}
*Btw, as the article points out, while being able to derive a mathematical sum is an achievement, it is not at all clear that doing so nullifies Zeno's argument. If it were that simple, then saying "Nevertheless, Achilles DOES catch the tortoise" would nullify his argument with much less need of math. That is why we call them [[paradox]]es of motion and not ''disproofs'' of motion. Btw, I have taught calculus. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Nor}}'''
| '''14.16 (100)'''
| {{AFL SM}}
| 9.20 (74)
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 10,000
| 6 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''13.13 (91)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 10.11 (71)
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 14,232
| 6 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''14.11 (95)'''
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 8.10 (58)
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 21,000
| 6 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL StK}}
| 9.16 (70)
| '''{{AFL Gee}}'''
| '''13.9 (87)'''
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 16,300
| 6 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Mel}}'''
| '''16.15 (111)'''
| {{AFL Col}}
| 9.11 (65)
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 81,099
| 6 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''13.10 (88)'''
| {{AFL Car}}
| 9.7 (61)
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 16,000
| 6 August 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 16===
**Why are there other blogs included in there with philosophical discussions of Zenos paradox if they are not reliable sources. You are showing your own bias as your previous reverts on other peoples edits have shown. Why are you not picking up on things like the fact that electrons don't jump quanta, they are located in a probability cloud, therefore not discreet. I have a mind to flag this article as bias based on the fact that the mathematical solution that has been shown is in fact two centuries old. Even in quantum mechanics the subatomic particles are in motion. They are '''not''' static. Motion is inherent in these particles so the the argument that we cannot predict motion at the quantum level because of the uncertainty principle does not lend any credibility to the fact that Zeno's conjecture is that we cannot move in the first place.
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Gee}}'''
| '''10.14 (74)'''
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 4.10 (34)
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 9,445
| 13 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''8.12 (60)'''
| {{AFL StK}}
| 7.7 (49)
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 22,640
| 13 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''7.15 (57)'''
| {{AFL Ess}}
| 6.8 (44)
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 16,291
| 13 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL SM}}'''
| '''13.13 (91)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 7.12 (54)
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 6,109
| 13 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Mel}}
| 9.13 (67)
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''11.10 (76)'''
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 24,646
| 13 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 4.6 (30)
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''7.11 (53)'''
| [[Western Oval]]
| 12,013
| 13 August 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 17===
To settle the argument, I will reproduce the series proof with a '''link''' to the original and then it can be left up to philosophical debate. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shamoz Shah|Shamoz Shah]] ([[User talk:Shamoz Shah|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shamoz Shah|contribs]]) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{start box}}
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
| '''Home team'''
| '''Home team score'''
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''9.17 (71)'''
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 8.4 (52)
| [[Glenferrie Oval]]
| 13,000
| 20 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Ess}}
| 9.7 (61)
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''10.12 (72)'''
| [[Windy Hill, Essendon|Windy Hill]]
| 29,500
| 20 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''8.3 (51)'''
| {{AFL SM}}
| 5.9 (39)
| [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]]
| 22,267
| 20 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''9.12 (66)'''
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 5.6 (36)
| [[Princes Park Football Ground|Princes Park]]
| 17,100
| 20 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Ric}}'''
| '''9.14 (68)'''
| {{AFL Mel}}
| 8.12 (60)
| [[Punt Road Oval]]
| 8,000
| 20 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL StK}}'''
| '''9.9 (63)'''
| {{AFL Foo}}
| 6.15 (51)
| [[Junction Oval]]
| 16,100
| 20 August 1960
{{end box}}


===Round 18===
*See [[WP:SPS]], stop making this a personal, emotional issue (I did not even delete the link last time) - <s>and consider creating an account</s> and please sign your comments with 4 of these tildas ~ --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
{{start box}}
*and again: we call them [[paradox]]es of motion and not ''disproofs'' of motion.--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
|- bgcolor="#CCCCFF"
*You are attributing bias to me and you do not even have your facts straight about the editing history of this article --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
| '''Home team'''
*Mathematical solutions were devised about 2000 years ago, not 200 - please read the [[paradox]] article --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
| '''Home team score'''
* a proposed solution using mathematical series notation is already contained in the article. do you find anthing missing fom it? --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
| '''Away team'''
| '''Away team score'''
| '''Venue'''
| '''Crowd'''
| '''Date'''
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Gee}}
| 9.9 (63)
| '''{{AFL Haw}}'''
| '''14.12 (96)'''
| [[Kardinia Park (Stadium)]]
| 14,857
| 27 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Foo}}'''
| '''18.9 (117)'''
| {{AFL Ric}}
| 11.11 (77)
| [[Western Oval]]
| 12,419
| 27 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| '''{{AFL Fit}}'''
| '''9.16 (70)'''
| {{AFL StK}}
| 6.9 (45)
| [[Brunswick Street Oval]]
| 19,507
| 27 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Mel}}
| 10.5 (65)
| '''{{AFL Ess}}'''
| '''10.18 (78)'''
| [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]]
| 50,274
| 27 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL Nor}}
| 6.8 (44)
| '''{{AFL Col}}'''
| '''11.12 (78)'''
| [[Arden Street Oval]]
| 27,000
| 27 August 1960
|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
| {{AFL SM}}
| 8.8 (56)
| '''{{AFL Car}}'''
| '''11.9 (75)'''
| [[Lake Oval]]
| 11,000
| 27 August 1960
{{end box}}


==Ladder==
**Alright, let's start again.
{| class="wikitable"
**[[WP:SPS]] applies to materials which are sourced. The particular method I am proposing has been published by others. I am merely reproducing it as I have not seen it done anywhere else.
|
**I may have my facts wrong, but we both have bias along opposite ends of the spectrum here. You're approaching from a purely philosophical standpoint and I'm approaching from a purely mathematical one. The reality is somewhere in the middle.
!Team
**This particular solution is calculus based which originated in the 1900s.
!Won
**The proposed solution is inaccurate because of the factors involved. Firstly it adds time to the paradox where time was not originally a factor. Secondly, it says that infinite divisions of a distance can be summed in infinite time, yet we do not know if the universe is an open or closed interval. The method that I have used to sum the series works for both open and closed intervals leaving the semantic problem of whether such an interval can be summed. [[User:Shamoz Shah|Shamoz Shah]] ([[User talk:Shamoz Shah|talk]]) 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
!Lost
!Draw
!For
!Agst
!%
!Points
|-
!1
|[[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]
|align=center|14
|align=center|4
|align=center|0
|align=center|1455
|align=center|1017
|align=center|143.1
|align=center|56
|-
!2
|[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]]
|align=center|14
|align=center|4
|align=center|0
|align=center|1332
|align=center|1184
|align=center|112.5
|align=center|56
|-
!3
|[[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]]
|align=center|13
|align=center|5
|align=center|0
|align=center|1506
|align=center|1204
|align=center|125.1
|align=center|52
|-
!4
|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
|align=center|11
|align=center|7
|align=center|0
|align=center|1314
|align=center|1150
|align=center|114.3
|align=center|44
|-
|colspan=7 height=4px|
|-
!5
|[[Hawthorn Football Club|Hawthorn]]
|align=center|11
|align=center|7
|align=center|0
|align=center|1251
|align=center|1192
|align=center|104.9
|align=center|44
|-
!6
|[[St Kilda Football Club|St Kilda]]
|align=center|9
|align=center|9
|align=center|0
|align=center|1159
|align=center|1140
|align=center|101.7
|align=center|36
|-
!7
|[[Carlton Football Club|Carlton]]
|align=center|8
|align=center|9
|align=center|1
|align=center|1300
|align=center|1313
|align=center|99.0
|align=center|34
|-
!8
|[[Sydney Swans|South Melbourne]]
|align=center|7
|align=center|11
|align=center|0
|align=center|1304
|align=center|1413
|align=center|92.3
|align=center|28
|-
!9
|[[Geelong Football Club|Geelong]]
|align=center|6
|align=center|11
|align=center|1
|align=center|1311
|align=center|1373
|align=center|95.5
|align=center|26
|-
!10
|[[Footscray Football Club|Footscray]]
|align=center|6
|align=center|12
|align=center|0
|align=center|1065
|align=center|1178
|align=center|90.4
|align=center|24
|-
!11
|[[North Melbourne Football Club|North Melbourne]]
|align=center|5
|align=center|13
|align=center|0
|align=center|1183
|align=center|1474
|align=center|80.3
|align=center|20
|-
!12
|[[Richmond Football Club|Richmond]]
|align=center|2
|align=center|14
|align=center|2
|align=center|1086
|align=center|1628
|align=center|66.7
|align=center|12
|-
|}


==Consolation Night Series Competition==
**I have reworded the solution to make clear my meaning behind it. Check to see if it agrees with you. I think we are roughly on the same page.[[User:Shamoz Shah|Shamoz Shah]] ([[User talk:Shamoz Shah|talk]]) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The night series were held under the floodlights at Lake Oval, [[South Melbourne, Victoria|South Melbourne]], for the teams (5th to 12th on ladder) out of the finals at the end of the season.


Final: [[Sydney Swans|South Melbourne]] 10.12 (70) defeated [[Hawthorn Football Club|Hawthorn]] 8.11 (59)
== Defender of Wikipedia ==


==Premiership Finals==
[[Image:WikiDefender Barnstar.png|frame|left|For outstanding efforts in defending Wikipedia from vandalism, in particular the [[John F. Kennedy|JFK]] article, I award you the [[Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia|Defender of Wiki Barnstar]] -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]]]]
===First Semi-Final===
--Hey, thank you very much, Husnock. I have now noticed vandalism on several articles that seems to be part of a class assignment gone astray --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 19:39, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
!Team
!1 Qtr
!2 Qtr
!3 Qtr
!Final
|-
|[[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]]
|align=center|2.6
|align=center|6.9
|align=center|7.13
|align=center|7.15 (57)
|-
|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
|align=center|2.7
|align=center|5.9
|align=center|6.12
|align=center|9.12 (66)
|-
|align=center|Attendance: 81,209
|-
|}


===Second Semi-Final===
== history articles on wikipedia? ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Team
!1 Qtr
!2 Qtr
!3 Qtr
!Final
|-
|[[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]
|align=center|3.6
|align=center|6.12
|align=center|11.15
|align=center|14.18 (102)
|-
|[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]]
|align=center|1.2
|align=center|2.6
|align=center|2.12
|align=center|4.16 (40)
|-
|align=center|Attendance: 79,796
|-
|}


===Preliminary Final===
Hello Jim, I'm an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including the writing of history on Wikipedia. We'd like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.
{| class="wikitable"

!Team
Thanks for your consideration.
!1 Qtr

!2 Qtr
Joan Fragaszy
!3 Qtr

!Final
jfragasz_at_gmu.edu
|-

|[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]]

|align=center|2.2
Sounds interesting - I am going to be very busy the next month - and cannot plan exact times to chat - so let's start with e-mails --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 18:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
|align=center|7.3

|align=center|8.7
Hi Jim, if you're more available now, I'm still very interested in speaking with you about your work on Wikipedia. Feel free to drop me an email at jfragasz_at_gmu_dot_edu. - Joan, 8/22/05
|align=center|8.12 (60)

|-

|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
== re: history articles on Wikipedia ==
|align=center|2.1

|align=center|6.4
Hi Jim, if you'd like to email me when you have some time I'm still very interested in speaking with you. Thanks, Joan Fragaszy. jfragasz at gmu dot edu
|align=center|7.5

|align=center|9.11 (65)

|-
== Units of measure ==
|align=center|Attendance: 65,301

Thanks for what you did to [[Litre]]. If you look at my user contributions you will see that I have been trying to ensure that unit articles are consistent and clear. I would welcome your thoughts. Take a look at [[Talk:Metre]] for an ongoing discussion. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 18:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

:<s>Two</s> Three comments - I think the reference to hours, minutes, and days as other "accepted units" makes it clearer just how well accepted they are. I also think it would be helpful to note which derived units are used often (mL & perhaps kL being about it, with dL being used in some engineering). Lastly, though it is only a multiple x 1, it can be helpful to show (& highlight) where in the table the base unit (Litre) fits.--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 20:40, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

::Jim, are you distinguishing between North American spelling (liter) and the spelling used elsewhere (litre)? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 04:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Good point. I agree with you that it could say that litre is in the same category as hour. This would add value. However, I think that belongs lower down e.g. after the definition. A lot of these unit articles were getting too detailed too early. I wanted to simplify them and make them consistent for the reader that just wants to know something simple. Perhaps there should be an explicit section within the accepted units stating which of the three types of accepted unit it is.

:::As far as 'used often' is concerned, I am not sure how we would define or measure that. This may have been the reason why there was no consistent number of articles about prefixed multiples. The attempt to look official and comprehensive by individual articles was incompatible with the lack of editor motivation to go beyond multiples 'used often'. The solution could be to mention the multiples that are common, somewhere within the main article, as I think you suggest.

:::Highlighting the unit within the table of prefixes is a good idea. The table could be revised to be more compact.

:::To Tony, I am not sure what you mean. I do not know the history of things. The BIPM does not mandate spelling, but I understand that Wikipedia SI articles use the spelling that happens to be used in the BIPM SI brochure. The American spelling is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. I think most Wikipedia articles mention spelling variants very early in the article. Did you overlook that sentence?

:::In summary, I made these edits of several different units to demonstrate an approach. I am sure it is an improvement and I am sure that it can be improved further in a variety of ways. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 11:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


It's not that I disagree with you, the 'units of measure' part of Canadian English has almost nothing to do with language, I'm at least as guilty as anybody else, it's just that in Canadian supermarkets you buy fruits and vegtables by the pound(with the metric price in smaller print). You may often find 450 gr of butter instead of 454 gr, but it's almost impossible to find 500 gr or 400, and cans of pop are 355 ml not 350 or 400 or 300. Often high grade carton juices are 961ml instead of 1L, etc. et et naseaum. At fastfood restaurants cups are measured in ounces(and people talk of 16oz drinks and 21oz drinks, and people - young and old - talk largely of pounds of butter or apples or bananas when talking about their grocery bills, although 20 somethings will usually talk of 355 cans of pop or concentrated juice). if there is a units of measure section and it talks about food, some of these things should be mentioned(again not disagreeing with your explanations of your edits, and if a units of measure section can not be made to talk mostly about language I'm not opposed to scrapping it)
[[User:Jethro 82|Jethro 82]] ([[User talk:Jethro 82|talk]]) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Numbers==

Under ten is universal for newspapers, but for books and magazines it's under one hundred. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

== September 11, 2001 attacks ==

Examination of public videos reveals evidence of substantially different facts. Consider the contents of this video:* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change New Video Documentary of WTC Collapse]
As you watch, note particularly the differences in fact between this video and the wikipedia article, that are verifiable by you by reviewing the sources yourself (ie renting, buying or downloading). We are being lied to. Maybe we want to believe the lies because the truth implies intent from within.
-unsigned by anon IP



== [[Talk:Canada]] ==

The number of asterisks before a comment is meant as a way of ''threading'' the discussion; the degree of indentation indicates what is being replied to. Putting a different type of bullet before my comments doesn't "separate authors"; it misrepresents what comment I'm replying to. Anything other than a single asterisk makes it look as though I'm replying to ''you'', rather than the reality that we were ''both'' replying to Don in close succession. The signature at the end of a comment is what keeps one editor's comments distinguished from another; the indentation at the ''beginning'' indicates which prior comment I'm ''replying'' to. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

*that's ONE way of looking at indentation. Another is that I was using *s & you were using :s. Yet another is that level of indentation indicates who is speaking
- some discussions have no indents at all
*The signature does not come until the end and putting *s under *s without an extra line feed makes it look like separate points all in one reply --- I do really not care - as long as it is not the way described in this point
*There was an edit conflict & then an intervening edit I did not even see, so to me indenting with a big extra line feed was preferable to all in one
*Anyway, no need to battle each other when we agree on the content issue --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 07:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Population clock.
The automatic update wasn't always that accurate. But have it your way if it means that much to you. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.212.198.87|80.212.198.87]] ([[User talk:80.212.198.87|talk]]) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It is EXACTLY accurate (in terms of co-inciding with the Canada population clock) once a day at precisely 00:00 UTC - rounded off to the nearest hundred. If you do not round off, it would be accurate for only a few seconds --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

== Alumni list on [[:Chaminade High School]] ==

I did an alpha sort because it makes it quicker for those who learn of a prominent alumnus, but don't know his year, to insert him into the list. Most such lists are organized that way; a few are first divided by reason for notability, then alpha-sorted.--[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See reply at [[Talk:Chaminade High School]]--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 06:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

:The chap is Don Murphy and he strongly objects to his article, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination)]]. While the article will likely remain given his objection and that his notability is as a film producer it feels like a good idea to not have the school he went to, which has nothing to do with his notability, recording the fact. Its a highly problematic article and the guy is very pissed off with wikipedia. Hope this helps and am willing to discuss further, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Common Era]] again ==

JimWae, Christian Religious Ideology does not constitute a Neutral point of view! You have been reported to the Administrator Edison. I will continue to revert your edits where you are using Christian Ideology in replace of historical fact. If you want B.C to mean before Christ and A.D. to mean after death, than I suggest you add these comments to the Christianity page and leave them there. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lanitrix|Lanitrix]] ([[User talk:Lanitrix|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lanitrix|contribs]]) 02:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Hi JimWae,<br />
You modified the BCE-CE article with edit comment "chronologically equivalent - if they were "equivalent" there's be no difference at all". I'm afraid you do not grasp the meaning of 'equivalent'. It is not a synonym for 'identical' or 'equal', but it means literally 'of equal value', which implies there must be a difference. Your rephrasing as "alternative names for" is not [[WP:NPOV]] because it rather suggests that BCE-CE are alternatives for what then must be the real thing, BC-AD. You had also re-introduced the year zero of [[ISO 8601]]. That would require a very good source. To which year would that correspond? As far as I know, that iso standard does not set some new calendar, but only defines date formatting, mainly to overcome the 06/02/2007 problem for Americans being June and for Europeans Februari, and making it easier to sort dates by consequently going from longest period on the left to shortest period on the right. There may be a notation as 0000-00-00 for an unknown or unspecified year-month-date, but no time in history was iso's year 0. Kind regards. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 05:27&nbsp;(UTC)</span>

*I am & was aware that equivalent has a technical meaning in mathematics, though I had temporarily not considered it. I am not convinced that the technical mathematical meaning is the one true English meaning that all must or will recognize. It is not enough to say without qualification that they are equivalent. Further, saying "the sets of abbreviations are equivalent" appears to be jargonese. I cannot immediately think of any other abbreviations within the same language that would be candidates for equivalency - though perhaps you have one in mind. Abbreviations are not mathematical expressions and I think these are not equivalent abbreviations anyway, as they evaluate to different words entirely. (Btw, Saying "Kid is an alternative term for child" does not imply either is more real.) I have, however, not reverted to my edit, but instead (several hours before your note above?) revised to use the term "correspond" for the abbreviations - which I think can apply both to mathematical expressions & linguistic ones - since it is a term applied to sets in general. Cheers --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 05:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
*Equivalent sets have the same number of elements - I am not sure that is what needs to be said in this article --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 06:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
*As for ISO & year zero, I once took your position. While the standard never stipulates a year zero, following research I was convinced (by others, despite my reluctance) that it is implied. Year 3 BCE becomes year -2, implying that 1 BCE was year -0 --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
* see page 27 of http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ISO_8601_2004_E.zip?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199 ISO 8601:2004(E) from ISO (zip-pdf, 228KB) --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 06:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

:*The equivalent sets have nothing to do with mathematics (rather the use of these terms in mathematics follows more or less the normal usage in English). I'm sure you can recognize "equivalent" to contain the same token as "equal", "[[equilibrium]]", etc. I think it's from the Latin for even/equal. And "valent" is like "value", "[[valence]]" etc. The compound term ''never'' means two things being identical, but two different things having a same worth, or can be used for the same purpose. In normal usage, it does not necessarily imply having a same number of elements (at least not in case ''counting'' or ''distributing'' are not an issue). Any other usage of the term in English is just as wrong as it is in any other language (many have a corresponding term that looks quite like it).<br />The use of "set" is the normal English usage of consisting of things that go with each other, should not be mixed with the items from another set. That is what the article had not clearly enough mentioned in the lead section earlier: if one uses CE, one must also use BCE if such early date occurs; if one uses AD, the early date must have BC. One should never mix e.g. BCE and AD in a same text. But I must ask you never to use double quotes if you rephrase something, and most certainly not if you criticize the quote. I never put "the sets of abbreviations are equivalent" in the article. It stated: "The set of abbreviations CE and BCE, are taken as an equivalent to the set formed by AD, anno Domini (or Anno Domini), and BC, Before Christ, respectively."
:*You again modified the article, this time with edit comment "set of abbreviations are equivalent" is jargonese - starts to make article appear to be about the abbreviations". Starts? What do you think came first? Why do you think there are three versions of what CE-BCE would stand for? The idea had simply been to replace BC and AD that too clearly referred to a Christian Lord. Because AD is not normally used, we assume a year to be AD if no abbreviation or 'in the year of the Lord' is present, the ''practical'' change would simply be adding an "E" from Era (obvious, isn't it) to the "BC" and then one had to come up with something that would no longer say 'Christ' but of course by holding on to the preexisting BC the interpretation as Before Christ was easy. As "B" stood for 'before', and '"E" for era, consequently one ''can'' use the same notation without the "B" to replace an "AD" notation, but one counted on that not being necessary very often. In fact, for 'normal' years expressed ''with'' the "AD" properly in front of the year (following the Latin e.g. 'anno Domini MLXVI' for the Battle of Hastings), one has to move the abbreviation to the end, as one cannot rightly say 'in the year of the Common Era 1066' but must say 'in the year 1066 of the Common Era', hence in short 1066 CE. Thus in practice, you will find only very few occurrences of the CE. I even assume that most introductions of AD were done more to deliberately and devotely refer to the Lord, rather than to disambiguate between years more than a thousand years apart when "AD" became first introduced. And apart from texts about the date notation, so far I did not yet read a text with a year number and fully written-out name like Common Era. But obviously, as 'Common Era' is the common part of CE and BCE, that had to be the name of the 'new' notation system. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 06:57&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
:<span style="font-size:87%;font-style:oblique;color:#c00;">This next paragraph with my initial line of thought on iso-8601 is incorrect. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 21:44&nbsp;(UTC)</span></span>
:*You misinterpret the iso (it might have been clearer in that table though):<br />
{|style="margin-left:45px;border:1px solid #666;border-collapse:collapse;padding-right:4px;padding-left:6px;"
|-
|-
|−00020412|| style="border:1px solid #666;"|−0002-04-12||Expanded; four digits to represent the year. The twelfth of April in the second year before the year [0000]
|}
|}
<div style="margin-left:45px;">The table shows ''negative'' dates (iso does not use BC[E]), thus allowing ''calculations'' for which one has to count from 0 for -0002 to correspond to 2 BC[E]. Or from 0 for [+]0002 to correspond to AD 2 CE. -0001 is 1 BC[E], +0001 is AD 1 CE. Hence, it does ''not'' mean there actually was a year 0, when would that have been? You should rather interpret is as the ''infinitely small moment'' 0.</div>
:*— [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 06:57&nbsp;(UTC)</span>


===Grand Final===
:::I do not think we can assume any year, not even year 0, is but a moment. Look here too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ISO_8601#Before_0001 --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
''See [[List of Australian Football League premiers]] for a complete list.''


{| class="wikitable"
::::Your phrase'' '(Btw, Saying "Kid is an alternative term for child" does not imply either is more real.)' ''inserted at 06:26 in the section with time stamp 05:59, is pure [[demagogy]]: the person we call a kid is as real as the (possibly identical person) we call a child; the year we call 1066 CE is as real as the (certainly identical) year we call AD 1066. But the ''term'' "kid" is not the ''real'', the ''equally proper and generally applicable'' term for a young person, as the term "child" is. Thus stating that 'BCE-BC are alternative terms for BC-AD' does indeed suggest the latter to be the proper terms and the first something that should only be used under certain circumstances. The term kid ''is definitely not'' equivalent to to term child. The set of terms BCE-CE ''are'' equivalent to the set of terms terms BC-AD.
!Team
::::<span style="font-size:87%;font-style:oblique;color:#c00;">Hereunder my initial line of thought on iso-8601; but see also underneath this greyed-out text. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 17:27&nbsp;(UTC)</span></span>
!1 Qtr
<div style=";color:#666;">
!2 Qtr
::::The Wikipedia chatbox section of the talk page your latest comment goes to, comes to a hoax conclusion by picking and citing quotes out of context and personally building on such. E.g. I quote Joe Kreiss who finally quotes,'' '"Consecutive calendar years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers." (3.2.1) This means the years before [0001] must be sequential, specifically [-0001], [0000], [0001]. A jump from [-0001] to [0001] is not permitted.' ''In fact, the full quote from the iso specification is this:
!3 Qtr
{|style="margin-left:100px;border:1px solid #666;"
!Final
|-
|[[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]
|align=center|4.3
|align=center|5.5
|align=center|7.12
|align=center|8.14 (62)
|-
|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
|align=center|0.0
|align=center|1.0
|align=center|2.0
|align=center|2.2 (14)
|-
|-
|align=center|Attendance: 97,457
|3.2.1 The Gregorian calendar
|-
|-
|padding-right:4px;padding-left:6px;|This International Standard uses the Gregorian calendar for the identification of calendar days. This calendar provides a time scale consisting of a, potentially infinite, series of contiguous calendar years. Consecutive calendar years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers.
|}
|}
::::That says "This International Standard uses the Gregorian calendar (...). This calendar provides a time scale consisting of (...) contiguous calendar years." Notice that it never calls the iso standard 'a calendar', thus "This calendar" can only refer to "the Gregorian calendar" that preceeds it in the sentence and that is the title of the section starting with that sentence. And of only that Gregorian calendar is said that its years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers. Unless you can find a decent source that gives the Gregorian calendar a year 0 that lasted for twelve months, there is not going to be one in the iso standard either.
::::The hoax is only further fed by starting to talk of "a year 0" as you do in denying that "any year, not even year 0, is but a moment", as if there would really be "a year 0".<br />The iso never talks about "a year 0" but tries to mention in the little space available in the in my earlier comment cited table, that one should ''work from'' year [0000]. It does not explicitly say that such is a fictional 'year', in fact a mere representation to arrive at the iso standard representation of years, because it must have appeared all too obvious for people clearly setting a standard to ''represent'' dates and times, who were never trying to create a new calendar and did not foresee the wild assumptions on a WP talk page; the iso drafters are used to set out dry rules for people without a galloping fantasy. It just means, ''when we represent years, we do so by adding the number of the year at hand to the year representation '0000', and signing the representation according to the year at hand being one before the start moment of the Gregorian calendar or one after that moment, thus '0000' + 376 gives the required 4-digit absolute value '0376' which becomes '-0376' for a year BC[E] or '[+]0376' for one AD/CE.''</div>


===Grand Final Teams===
::::— [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 13:20–13:50&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
{| class="wikitable"
:::: (Temporary note: will follow up in a moment, food's on the table) — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 17:27&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
!

!
*The iso gives no specific guidelines on how to deal with years before [0001] - but makes a multitude of references to the year [0000]. Nowhere does it say the year [0000] is a momentary fiction. Please reconsider your statment that I am denying a statement I neither made nor discussed in that logical form. You will need more support before you can so assuredly call this a hoax
!Melbourne
*Article content should be discussed on article talk pages - not on a user talk page --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
!

|-
::::Final note: As this user suddenly could not wait a few minutes ''after'' my I having shown a very clear intention to clarify a few things, and now goes on at the above tone and is not interested in a further discussion here, there is no point in my spending more time at this. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 17:45&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
|Backs

|align=center|[[John Beckwith (footballer)|John Beckwith]]
::::*I was preparing the above AS you made your entry. Article content discussions are not very productive as 2-person messages, and I wanted to encourage you to continue to talk in the article talk pages - unless of course you are prepared to abandon your position. Strangely, I detect far more "tone" coming from your end. Your demagoguery attribution to me (on a user talk page, no less) is indicative of something more than concern with content, no?--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Tassie Johnson]]
::::*This is all rather sad that we are fighting already - and I had made a special effort early on to not be overly-critical. Ironically, I think we are both supporters of usage of CE, no? Was it my reciprocated use of "should"?--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Trevor Johnson (footballer)|Trevor Johnson]]

|-
:::::*Upon saving after a new entry had been saved, you might have read that entry before saving across the edit conflict you should then have noticed. I had just wanted to replace the word "clarify" in my 'final note' into "thoroughly reconsider" (as you will have guessed by my retracting the entire long paragraph on the iso 8601 year standard). Your tone after this and my introduction of the 'temporary note', was then pedantic and your sending me towards the public talk page as soon as you see you're going to be victorious, while you start your talk page with ''"If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. (...) If appropriate, I will move talk from here to relevant article talk page, so that everyone can share in the discussion."'' makes your 17:31 remark most uncivil. Hence my tone. After two edit conflicts, I'm now once again trying to save this reply. No hard feelings, I assume the edit conflict you had encountered may not have made very clear what I had done, but it had definitely not appeared that way when I was cutting this off by my the 'final note'. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 18:11&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
|H/Backs

|align=center|[[Geoff Case]]
:::::*To make a long discussion short, 1 BCE is indeed a full year 0000 in the iso 8601 standard. This is shown clearly in e.g.<br >[http://www.enzyklopädie.de/ISO_8601.html] (in German), <b />[http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/hlp_analysis_calend.html].<br />Hence I was preparing the links etc when food appeared on the table... You're right about there being a real year 0000. Also by your assumption of my preference for BCE-CE as I do not see the point of coercing a Christian emphasis by terminology onto the entire world, devoted Christians should be happy enough with their belief's basis becoming the 0-point of a worldwide calendar, and by not having to adopt another calendar themselves. Kind regards. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 18:23&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
|align=center|[[John Lord (footballer)|John Lord]]

|align=center|[[Ian Thorogood]]
*In the [[Common Era]] article, the part introduced by "thus" in the (2nd?) paragraph does not follow from the preceding. Also the part about year zero seems to be becoming the main topic of a sentence, increasing the chance of confusion there. I am going to make some changes. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
|-

|Centre Line
:*1. The anno Domini is also an unclear terminology: Thai people write in English text about the Lord Buddha. Their date system has at present the year 2550 (though their current New year is on (also) our January 1 while it had been on April 13 a few generations ago). That is the 2550th year after the Enlightenment of the Buddha (allowing the end of the cumbersome series of consecutive lives, the final stage, or his death if you prefer). Thus to Thai people, the year of the Lord would appear to be their traditional year, currently 2550, and not currently 2007 of the Lord Christ. Since at least a decade, both year notations occur simultaneously, for instance some banks' excerpts are in traditional years, other banks print transactions in CE years.
|align=center|[[Brian Dixon]]
:*2. About your last remark, I'll have a look. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 18:37&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
|align=center|[[Laurie Mithen]]

|align=center|[[Bryan Kenneally]]
I see you've reverted me & returned to "equivalent". "Corresponds to" is much clearer. Do we have to debate that all over again? --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
|-
:Apparently. 'Equivalent' is the most appropriate term, 'corresponds to' is reasonably close. But a lead is not supposed to be a series of paragraphs of one or two short sentences. It is supposed to have two to four paragraphs of some length, with related topics brought together. That made me not ''revert'' you but undo the splitting of the paragraph by which you had ''reverted'' me. Both our contributions were edits, not reverts. I had indeed maintained your proper reintroduction of iso 8601 and as that prescribes a year format of 4 digits, shown that as well. And I made clear that your earlier statement of "thus" not being proper, and which you had lifted out of the article, had been mistaken. I did so by rephrasing the sentence in a shorter and more readable way that clearly makes the second part of a sentence a consequence of the first part, hence with "thus". And it had required to use the term "correspond" because here it much more explicitly has to mean that BCE corresponds to BC and CE corresponds to AD. Here "equivalent" would be misplaced. I hope you notice the difference. Even for style reasons alone (repetition of 'correspond'), that required to reintroduce "equivalent" where that is the proper term (BCE-CE is equivalent, of a same worth for a same purpose, for BC-AD, where it does not as much needs to explain which term on the left corrsponds to which term on the right, as that is done by the final word, "respectively"). Hence my edit. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[08 Sep]][[2007]] 21:12&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
|H/Forwards

|align=center|[[Geoff Tunbridge]]
What does it mean to say that 2 sets are equivalent?
|align=center|[[Clyde Laidlaw]]
* In set language, it means they have the same # of elements - this adds nothing to the article
|align=center|[[Hassa Mann]]
* if you mean, as you seem to suggest here in talk (but give no hint in article text) they have some kind of equal value (social? moral?), then that is a POV statement. CE advocates would say it has more value, CE detractors would say less. Please consider my recent edit as a proposed way to avoid all the issues you have raised above--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
|-
*The only thing the lede needs to say about year 0 is that it is not used (in either system) - anything further belongs in main body or in separate article--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
|Forwards

|align=center|[[Bob B. Johnson]]
No, I'm not commenting here, it went on at the article's talk page. I just saw that an earlier most unfortunate copy/paste-or-so mistake had created a ridiculous and misleading statement, I just inserted "allowing" in my comment mentioning the Enlightenment of the Lord Buddha: the reaching of the highest stage of awareness allowed him (years later in that same life) to reach the end the long series of consecutive lifes that according to his teaching are considered full of unhappiness, suffering. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[14 Sep]][[2007]] 00:55&nbsp;(UTC)</span>
|align=center|[[Alan Rowarth]]

|align=center|[[Frank 'Bluey' Adams]]
== MLK ==
|-

|Rucks/Rover
Do you think you might take a look at the recent talk on the MLK page? I would be interested to know if you have an opinion[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Len Mann]]

|align=center|[[Ron Barassi]] (c)
== Dominion issue again ==
|align=center|[[Ian Ridley]]

|-
It doesn't stop. Please help. {[[Talk:Canada#Poll:_Should_Canada_be_refered_to_as_a_Dominon_in_lead.3F|See Canada Talk Page]]) --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
|Reserves

|align=center|[[Brian Leahy]]
== [[American Civil War]] [[WP:GA|GA]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] review: On Hold ==
|align=center|[[Ray Nilsson]]

|align=center|
As part of the [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]], we're doing [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]]. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed [[American Civil War]] and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention this to you since you are a significant contributor to the page and, if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates & needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.
|-

|Coach
If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --[[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Norm Smith]]


== Speedy deletion of [[:Image:Clipboard01.jpg]] ==

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|32px|left]] A tag has been placed on [[:Image:Clipboard01.jpg]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per [[WP:CSD#I6|CSD I6]].

Under the [[WP:CSD#General_criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]], articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Your first article|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article]], and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. [[User:SQL|SQL]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:SQL|Query Me!]])</small></sup> 13:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)<!-- Template:Db-csd-notice -->

== [[Richmond, British Columbia]] ==

Hi Jim,
:You made an unreferenced addition to the [[Richmond, British Columbia]] article, and I wanted to know whether you determined that from a verifiable source or if they are your own observations. For example, from my own observations (despite trying to find verifiable information via the City of Richmond website and Google), City Hall is not the tallest building in Richmond (both of my grandmothers live in Richmond in taller buildings.)
Thanks, [[User:Andrewjuren|Andrew<font color="lightblue">juren</font>]][[User_talk:Andrewjuren|(talk)]] 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

*According to Richmond Review, [[as of 2005]] City Hall was tallest. http://www.yourlibrary.ca/community/richmondreview/archive/RR20050616/news.html When I moved here in 1980, the tallest was the apartment block across Minoru from Richmond Center - it was the ONLY structure above 3 storeys in all of Richmond - except for the airport tower. Things may have changed since 2005, but I am not aware of anything taller than that proposed Buddha statue which was rejected. Storeys alone do not indicate height. How many storeys are you aware of? I think we have a source for [[as of 2005]] anyway & someone can change it if they have another --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
* 8 storeys AND over 45 m, making almost 6 metres per storey - something apartment buildings do not do --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
* Do you contest that few houses in Richmond have basements? Do we need a source even to say the Earth is round? --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


== Jefferson & Berkeley Counties, WV ==

Dear Jim, you added some info on the Border States re: Jefferson & Berkeley Counties which I don't think is quite accurate. Jefferson & Berkeley were made part of WV in 1863 by the Wheeling Restored Government, and a poll was conducted that year in both counties and those who were allowed to participate voted to join WV. They didn't join after the war, the lawsuit by Virginia to recover those two counties was won by WV in the Supreme Court, which settled it once and for all. It makes it sound like the citizens of those counties had a poll after the war and voted to join WV, which is not at all true.
Thanks, [[User:Dubyavee|Dubyavee]] 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*Well, then the several other wikipedia articles from which I got that information also need editing --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC) -- primarily [[History_of_West_Virginia]] - guess we need some refs for any of this now --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*Part of likely confusion is Emancipation Proclamation which specifies Virginia, but specifically excepts "the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth" (Jefferson not there either) --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*Here are some more reliable sources indicating on quick read that you are correct. I wonder if we need to put the number in at all, since I still see no source for the number 50. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
**http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=78&invol=39
**http://www.wvhumanities.org/Statehood/virginiavwestvirginia.htm

**Dear Jim, 50 has usually been the number quoted for the formation of West Virginia, even the Virginia Historical Society gets it wrong though, they refer to the "50 Unionist Counties", which makes me laugh, they don't even know their own history. Anyway, if you don't mind, in the next few days I will rewrite that section, and put the Jefferson/Berkeley conflict in perspective, with an inline quotation from Fast & Maxwell's "History of West Virginia", which lays it out fairly logically. Wheeling took control of those two counties during the war, appointed officials, conducted polls for the 1864 election and used troops to keep the populace in line. I didn't want to get too detailed, since the article is on the Civil War, so I will keep it as short as possible. Thanks, [[User:Dubyavee|Dubyavee]] 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
* I see now my sources do support 50 - but I think for the Civil War article we have to watch out we do not get too specific. Saying 50 is fine in the general article, but any great specificity ''would'' be more appropriate in the [[Border states (Civil War)]] article - including mention of the [[Restored government of Virginia]] (a crucial yet often omitted step in any discussion of the constitutionality) - and of course in the [[History of West Virginia]] article --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 04:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

**I saw your question on the History of WV about the map. I see how it might be confusing, I will go and retitle the map to make it clearer. The map is intended to show the counties of WV which ratified Virginia's Ordinance of Secession, not the counties which voted for separate Statehood. I will retitle the map, thanks.[[User:Dubyavee|Dubyavee]] 04:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

*Thanks, I eventually figured out what was intended, but the change will reduce future confusion. Btw, do you know where there might be voting results county by county. It would also be interesting to compare each vote - for secession from US, for secession from VA, & final one for statehood --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

**The only book with voting records is Richard Curry's "A House Divided". It's not in print but not that scarce. [[User:Dubyavee|Dubyavee]] 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== Oyster Bay ==

First off, I'd appreciate it if you were calmer. I am quite aware of policy, and I'm assuming good faith on your part; I'd appreciate if you did likewise.

As far as the move: please see the categories of towns in [[:Category:Towns in Maine|Maine]], [[:Category:Towns in New Hampshire|New Hampshire]], [[:Category:Towns in Vermont|Vermont]], [[:Category:Towns in Massachusetts|Massachusetts]], [[:Category:Towns in Rhode Island|Rhode Island]], [[:Category:Towns in Connecticut|Connecticut]], [[:Category:Towns in New York|New York]], and [[:Category:Towns in Wisconsin|Wisconsin]]: the eight states that are divided into towns. Unless I missed some, or unless you change some, you'll observe that there's only one other town in all these states with the format "Town of ___, ___": the [[Town of Rye, New York]] in Westchester County. Wikipedia is not to be a chaotic place: we establish consensus, including [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming conventions]]. Whether or not your preferred name for Oyster Bay is the best choice, it is an obvious violation of the standard for such names — surely there would be more names like this otherwise. If you want to see these places changed, then take it up somewhere where there's tons of visibility, as such a change will have wide-reaching implications. And don't think that it's just New York towns, or towns in these eight states; I expect that my hometown is named the Village of Belle Center, but we simply have it as [[Belle Center, Ohio|Belle Center]]. Your preferred naming convention will likely require the renaming of every single incorporated community in the United States, so be prepared for the controversy that will come if you follow this path. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

*While ''Town Of Oyster Bay'' may be a difference from usual practice, it is not a violation of any "standard" (in the sense of policy). What do you hope to achieve by your changes & moves? Are you expecting people to type in xTownNamex (town), XStateNameX in the search box? While this may not be an issue for your village in Ohio, the issue for LIers is that all but one Town name is also the name of a place within that town. People do not say [[East Hampton]] meaning to also include [[Montauk]] - when they say [[East Hampton]] unmodified, they mean the village - not the town -- similarly for the other towns --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 05:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

::This is my last reply if you continue to present yourself in this manner. Please write more civilly.

::I expect people to go to Oyster Bay just as I expect them to go to [[Barre, Vermont]]. When you type that, do you expect a disambiguation page or do you except the [[Barre (city), Vermont|city]]? Admittedly, it's not the most convenient, but that's the way it is in all eight "town" states. Are you going to try to change every single community with this sort of disambiguation? If so, go ahead — but unless you so desire, don't try to have one or two changed. You speak of errors that result (for example, the Oyster Bay disambiguation page) — I do my best to fix wrong links as a result of changes such as this, but I don't see why I must be held responsible for every single wrong link. If you never make mistakes, that's good; but I suspect that you so do. So what? It doesn't matter if you make a good-faith error, especially if you try to fix it once you realise that something's wrong.

::By the way, if you put "Oyster Bay, New York" into the Census Bureau's Factfinder, you'll get [http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Oyster+Bay&_cityTown=Oyster+Bay&_state=04000US36&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010 this] page: it's the town. [http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=06000US3605956000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C05000US36059%7C06000US3605956000&_street=&_county=Barre&_cityTown=Barre&_state=04000US50&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=060&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2006_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y Barre, Vermont] is similar to what we'd call a disambiguation page; the city is listed as [http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US5003175&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C05000US36059%7C06000US3605956000&_street=&_county=Barre&_cityTown=Barre&_state=04000US50&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry= Barre city, Vermont]. This, I expect, is the reason that these articles are named this way: the Census is our source for the names and the basic information, and therefore we entitle our articles likewise by this reliable source. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
== Admin ==

Hi. I'd like to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|nominate]] you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] ([[User talk:Epbr123|talk]]) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

== Regarding your recent edit comment on Current Era... ==

Specifically:
:''...It's 2006 this year for anyone on Earth that is participating in day-to-day world commerce and communication...''
You need to update your calendar. It's currently 2007, and it will soon be 2008... ;) [[User:Benhocking|Ben Hocking]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Benhocking|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Benhocking|contribs]])</small></sup> 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, guy -- I was quoting from the cited article --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 04:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

== History of New York ==

Because you placed the "unbalanced" tag on the [[History of New York]] article you are required to indicate on the associated talk page the reasons why you placed this tag on the article so that the issue can be resolved. [[User:BradMajors|BradMajors]] ([[User talk:BradMajors|talk]]) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit comments I left in the template tag gave the reasons, but I added to the talk page as you wished - but NOT BECAUSE I was REQUIRED to do so --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

== Your recent edits ==

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four [[tilde]]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the [[Shift key]], and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button [[Image:Button sig2.png]] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!<!-- Template:Tilde --> --[[User:SineBot|SineBot]] ([[User talk:SineBot|talk]]) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Queens]] ==

I had to revert back for these reasons, which I briefly explained in the edit summary but will expand on here:

:1. ''"Overlinking?"'' -- There's tons of overlinking in the article already, so what's the problem?
:2. ''"Solitary years have very low-value as links"'' -- Please explain why you believe that. There is nothing wrong with linking years.
:3. ''"The former Town is NOT the county seat, Jamaica is"'' -- No matter which way you slice it, the county seat is still WITHIN the town of Jamaica, even today. Borough Hall and the new State Supreme Court building are both in Kew Gardens, part of the original town as a village ([http://www.triumphproperty.com/Content/Neighborhoods/Default.aspx?neighborhoodID=147]), not to mention the other court buildings which are in downtown Jamaica (the former Village of Jamaica).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. [[User:Rollosmokes|Rollosmokes]] ([[User talk:Rollosmokes|talk]]) 09:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

----

*1 & 2
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Autoformatting_and_linking
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlinking#Overlinking
*3 TOWN has a specific meaning in NY - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_subdivisions_of_New_York_State#Town
**There is no longer any '''Town''' of Jamaica, so it cannot be the county seat. Just leave it as Jamaica (or Jamaica & nearby areas).
*4 see the Mineola article - it is in TOH & TONH. TOWN has specific meaning in NY
*5 why put 1870 between 2 early events about # of towns??
*Please do NOT stick to your story - please revert yourself and stop keeping me from getting to sleep --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 09:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

===Breaking it all down===
:''*1 & 2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Autoformatting_and_linking] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlinking#Overlinking]''
:''*3 TOWN has a specific meaning in NY - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_subdivisions_of_New_York_State#Town]...There is no longer any '''Town''' of Jamaica, so it cannot be the county seat. Just leave it as Jamaica (or Jamaica & nearby areas).''
Just the mere mention of this is redundant. And I did use the word '''former''' when I re-wrote that Jamaica became "county seat" again post-consolidation. Next...
:''*4 see the Mineola article - it is in TOH & TONH.''
Wrong. Check your maps, because Mineola's southern border is [[Old Country Road]] -- the dividing line between the towns of Hempstead ([[Garden City, New York|Village of Garden City]]) and North Hempstead. A technicality: the Nassau County seat is Mineola, but the county buildings are all on the south side of Old Country Road, in Garden City!
:''*5 why put 1870 between 2 early events about # of towns??''
Oversight on my part, the numbers screwed me up.

I also noticed that you may not be from New York. So if you aren't you really have no clue as to what is real around here. That was a professional criticism, so don't take it personally. [[User:Rollosmokes|Rollosmokes]] ([[User talk:Rollosmokes|talk]]) 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

----

I am glad to see you have now considered what I have pointed out & made some appropriate changes. Please have the courtesy in future to consider changes made before blindly reverting to a version you had made - which had numerous problems.
*Note that when I changed the location of Mineola to "now a village in Nassau County", the article had previously (only & probably erroneously) stated Mineola was in Town of Hempstead. The Mineola article still says it is in 2 towns, (I have made corrections to the town articles) - However, I never ever sought to include that (its being in 2 towns) in the article. I think it would be more meaningful to those not from LI to point out that Mineola is now in a different county & that this point could easily be overlooked if the emphasis is on what town it was in.
*Regarding your linking of solitary years
**from [[Overlinking#Overlinking]]
**: Overlinking in a webpage or another hyperlinked text is the characteristic of having too many hyperlinks.[1][2] It is characterized by:... '''Links that have little information content, such as linking on specific years like [[1995]]''', or unnecessary linking of common words used in the common way, '''for which the reader can be expected to understand the word's full meaning in context, without any hyperlink help.'''
**date links are so that user preferences will work. From [[WP:Date#Autoformatting and linking]]:
**:'''Full dates''', and '''days and months''', are normally autoformatted by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users.... Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. '''Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic'''. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible <nowiki>([[1997 in South African sport|1997]])</nowiki>, but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.
** Surely you cannot mean that every year link deepens the user's understanding about [[Queens]].
* Btw, Mineola (ToNH) is the county seat even tho' many county offices are in Garden City (in ToH). Jamaica became county seat again in 1898 even though some of its offices are now (but likely NOT in 1898) in Kew Gardens.
* I assure you that you are completely wrong about what you think you have "noticed". You will find I have made significant contributions to many, many article about "Greater" Long Island, NYC, & NY. It is also rather inhospitable for you to suggest that people who are "from" a place have any privilege to drive away those who are not "from" a place. I have also lived in places far from LI, and from that perspective it is clear that saying the former county seat is no longer in that county is more meaningful than what town it was in (with the reader having to figure out that that same town is no longer in that county). It is the residents of LI who most likely to be confused about which places are in which towns. Outsiders couldn't care enough to get confused about it --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


On the other hand EB Online http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052827/Mineola says Mineola is in 2 towns - of course it also gives the wrong date for its being county seat --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the Post Office issue --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:"About 1 out of every 20 places with a Mineola mailing address are not in Mineola. These places that have a Mineola mailing address but are not in Mineola are in the Village of Garden City in the Town of Hempstead, and at the same time, there are places in the Village of Mineola with a Williston Park or a Carle Place mailing address." http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NYNASSAU/2004-08/1093051529

Looks like ToH has at least one building in "Mineola" too - http://toh.li/content/rc/museums/loc_mineola.html#nassaupolice --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 07:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
----
===Copied here because user deleted it from his talk page===
* I have added 5 or 6 references to the article that demonstrate clearly that not all of Queens County got to vote on consolidation - the above "history" can only be described (without tending to invective) as "inventive". No part of present Nassau County ever even voted on consolidation.
* Regarding "coterminous", you changed the fact regarding the date upon which it happened. It did not happen "with consolidation" in 1898, it did not happen UNTIL Nassau County was formed in 1899. THe fact that you still do not understand this, makes me doubt you have read anything I wrote, and indicates the level of frustration I have had to endure in communicating with you --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
* I have spent far too much time on this already, but I will sign off with one last remark - it is extremely contrary to co-operative work for you to repeatedly remove requests for citation. Your version of the history on consolidation was never sourced & now the sources show your version to be <s>almost</s> entirely in error. Removing requests for citation are not "minor" edits, as so many of yours were marked - they are extremely significant edits - moreso than many content edits. It is extremely insulting to other editors to so blithely remove them. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
* While all this was going on, your responses to me were almost entirely directed at me personally, rather than the issues. I probably did go a bit overboard by placing so many tags -- I regret that, but they all did apply & frankly I was running out of ways to get you to respond to what I was actually saying. You tell me how you would have handled someone putting unsourced error in the article, deleting all requests for citations (and also requests for a 3rd opinion and accuracy tags), and responding almost entirely with either personal attacks or by being completely dismissive --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

----
I found the relevant section of the MoS
[[WP:Citing sources#Where to place ref tags]]
{{quote|Some words, phrases or facts '''must be referenced mid-sentence''', while others are referenced at the end. '''Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS)'''....}} --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 02:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

== "vandalism" ==

I have been with Wikipedia since 2006, check my contribs. I think you are unqualified to decide what exactly constitutes Jesus Christ within Wikipedia. My image is perfectly acceptable as historical fact, please refrain from calling me a vandal as this is defamation of my character. ([[WP:NPA]]). Thanks! --[[User:Zcflint05|Zcflint05]] ([[User talk:Zcflint05|talk]]) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, Zach - not an toilet wall nor an art museum --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 09:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:I am well aware of that, Jim. I have been helping build this encyclopedia since 2006. Please do not treat me as an unexperienced editor or a child. I suggest you review our [[WP:NPOV|NPOV policy]] before further enforcing your point-of-view on Wikipedia pages as you have been doing at [[Jesus]]. Thanks! --[[User:Zcflint05|Zcflint05]] ([[User talk:Zcflint05|talk]]) 09:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

== "Leave me alone"? ==

Your attempt to bully me is not going to work. I have deleted all of those templates you added to my page, and should you continue to harrass me I will seek admin assistance. BTW, the next time you leave a comment on my talk page -- which I strongly discourage from this point on -- please sign it and be accountable. [[User:Rollosmokes|Rollosmokes]] ([[User talk:Rollosmokes|talk]]) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

== MoS ==

Wow, I must have misread the MoS a couple of months back&mdash;you're the first editor to correct me. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Ashnard|<font color="green">'''Ashnard'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Ashnard|'''<font color="red">Talk</font>''']]</sub> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Ashnard|'''<font color="black">'''Contribs'''</font>''']]</sup> 10:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:As a matter of interest, has this changed in the past couple of months, or has it always being like that? [[User:Ashnard|<font color="green">'''Ashnard'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Ashnard|'''<font color="red">Talk</font>''']]</sub> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Ashnard|'''<font color="black">'''Contribs'''</font>''']]</sup> 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

== Best I can do ==

This got removed from the atheist talk page. I wanted to make sure you saw it. No the quote does NOT conclude that religion is necessary for morality. The quote says religion is an "aid" to morality. From what I have learned from my own limited curiousity and experience all human wisdom, whether in ethics, religion, science, mathematics, etc. is subject to fallibility and modification.

When I was a child the milky way was the only galaxy, the United States Government stereotyped the Japanese soldier as being less than human, radium was hand painted on the numbers and hands of watches, there was negro satire in children's cartoons and high school minstrel shows, the pin-up girl was socially accepted, the baby Jesus was drawn in colored chalk on blackboards in U.S. public schools at Christmas time, what today is known as an affair was known as adultery, you crouched beneath your school desk to avoid being vaporized by an atomic bomb, only hillbillies sang and played guitars, Catholics worshipped statues, the South was segregated for blacks and whites, free cartons of cigarettes were sent to wounded soldiers in hospitals, there was no such thing as a supermarket, shops and stores closed on Sunday, on wednesday nights women were given dinnerware in movie theatres, horses still pulled ice wagons in major cities, cancer victims were on their backs in iron lungs, and convicted criminals were hanged and electrocuted. That's the best I can do.[[User:Kazuba|Kazuba]] ([[User talk:Kazuba|talk]]) 06:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your help.

*I am not sure what to respond to, but I am glad things worked out OK. Whether religion is NECESSARY for morality is a persistent topic - and seems to be what the Durants were considering in their (fuller, yet still incomplete) quote. It is unclear from the quote whether they ever attempt to give an answer, but from even the extended quote, the suggestion seems to be that it IS. T. Jefferson, eg, seemed to agree with Washington & publicly supported Xty, even though he was very much at odds with its churches --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== OldStyle Dates ==

I don't understand your change to Benedict Arnold: the difference is 11 days, not a year. [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In [[Old Style and New Style dates|Old Style]], the year number did not change on Jan 1 - it changed on Mar 25 - so from Jan 1 to Mar 20 it was still the "old" year. It would be neat if the template could detect that too - but it also Breaks date preferences as it now exists - at least MY date preferences of YYYY-MMMM-DD --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

== George Washington ==

Exactly which citation edits are you talking about? My referencing to the MOS was for the images, and I'm not sorry if I did not state that as well as I should have. --[[User:Happyme22|Happyme22]] ([[User_talk:Happyme22|talk]]) 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, I got the two confused. I'm not one for excuses, but it ''was'' later at night for me and I'm sorry. Haha - nothing there was per the MOS. I was aligning the images, and making the ref format into horizontal rather than vertical. If you and other editors prefer vertical, please keep it. Again, my appologies for my stupidity and confusion. --[[User:Happyme22|Happyme22]] ([[User_talk:Happyme22|talk]]) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Arbitration on Dominion issue ==

I've made an arbitration case on the nagging Dominion issue on [[Canada]] and related pages. There might be a need for you to comment. Thanks. --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 11:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
== Request ==
Care to go to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dominion mediation request page] for Dominion? Could us someone to support the request. Maybe this will work. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

== John F. Kennedy assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold ==

As part of the [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]], we're doing [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]]. I have reviewed [[John F. Kennedy assassination]] and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using [http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ this article history tool]). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --[[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] ([[User talk:Nehrams2020|talk]]) 06:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


== RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo ==

A [[WP:RFC/USER|request for comments]] has been filed concerning the '''conduct''' of {{User|Quizimodo}}. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[{{ns:4}}:Requests for comment/{{ucfirst:Quizimodo}}{{highrfc-loop|page={{ns:4}}:Requests for comment|username={{ucfirst:Quizimodo}}|number=zzzz}}]]. -- [[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 05:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC) <!-- Template:ConductDiscussion -->

== [[Persecution of Hindus]] ==

JimWae, as you have major contribution in the [[Religion in the United States]] article, so I have come here to you with a request. This is about the section [[Persecution_of_Hindus#United_States]] in the article [[Persecution of Hindus]]. I think the article has several POV concerns. The "United States" section in the article tells:
{{cquote|The rise of the Indian American community in the United States has brought about some isolated incidents of attacks on them, as has been the case with many minority groups in the United States. Attacks directed specifically against Hindus in the United States stem from what is often referred to as the "racialization of religion" among Americans, a process that begins when certain phenotypical features associated with a group and attached to race in popular discourse become associated with a particular religion or religions.}}

I think the entire paragraph suffers from [[WP:UNDUE]]. The entire paragraph is based on the opinion of Khyati Joshi. I have google searched many times to know about this person and found that she is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education of Fairleigh Dickinson University. But she is not notable person[http://www.google.co.in/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Khyati+Joshi&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images]. Especially in an article, which depicts religious persecution, why so much importance is given only in one person? Any person can hypothesise anything, can give any opinion, can write a research paper on his/her opinion, but why that is given too much importance in this article about a country? The theory presented in this paragraph, i.e. "racialization of religion" in the context of United States seems bit confusing to me, seems not to be notable theory. Google books give only 28 hits [http://books.google.co.in/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=racialization+of+religion&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=], and many of them are not in US context. Writing an entire paragraph like this based on one person's (who is not notable) opinion seems like [[WP:UNDUE]], I think the paragraph should be deleted per [[WP:UNDUE]]. Could you please investigate the matter. Thanks. '''[[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus|<font color="002bb8">Otolemur crassicaudatus</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus|talk]]) 12:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

*Well, the use of "often referred to as..." is not justified. Instead, "has been referred to by one writer as..." The editor does seem too quick to adopt the author's view. As for the entire paragraph, itself, it is pretty short & the USA should be covered if there is persecution there. Incidents are mentioned - but not supported. It is also not persecution in any official sense, but by by self-appointed hooligans --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


== Request for mediation not accepted ==

{| class="messagebox" style="width:90%"
|-
|-
|[[Image:Exquisite-folder4.png|75px]]
|A [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation|Request for Mediation]] to which you were are a party was [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection|not accepted]] and has been delisted.<br>You can find more information on the case subpage, [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion]].</center><br>
::''For the Mediation Committee,'' <font face="Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</font> 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
|}
|}
<small><center>This message delivered by [[User:MediationBot1|MediationBot]], an automated bot account [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|operated]] by the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee|contact the Mediation Committee directly]].</small></center>


{| class="wikitable"
== Irreligion ==
!

!
Hello JimWae. Can you please explain me about the changes you made at [[Template:Irreligion]]? Now, thanks to you, we must also include UFO religions like [[Raëlism]] in the template because it is a non-theist religion. And, how can you make comments like 'irreligion is not neutral, it carries a strong negative connotation'? I respect you views; however, please stop making such comments. I am an irreligious person and I have used that label for years. Please change the name to irreligion. Regards, [[User:Masterpiece2000|Masterpiece2000]] ([[User talk:Masterpiece2000|talk]]) 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
!Collingwood
:I have changed the name. If you disagree, feel free to discuss. Regards, [[User:Masterpiece2000|Masterpiece2000]] ([[User talk:Masterpiece2000|talk]]) 06:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
!

|-
You didn't wait long- AND you removed Bright's movement. Whatever label you might feel comfortable with is not necessarily an indication of how a word is actually used in the world. As I have outlined on the appropriate talk page, the term ''irreligion'' has more negative connotations than neutral ones. I WILL continue to make such comments - on the talk page for the article - where I HAVE felt free to continue the discussion & have waited already 5 times longer than you did AND have been discussing this recently since Jan 16 & previously since Sep 9 (one day after the creation of the template). --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
|Backs

|align=center|[[Ron Reeves (Australian footballer)|Ron Reeves]]
:I should have waited longer than I did. However, I didn't removed Bright's movement. Yes, you are right&mdash; the term ''irreligion'' has more negative connotations than neutral ones. In fact, I have removed 'irreligion' from my user page because it might offend some users. Irreligion is viewed as hostile to religion and it will offend religious people. What about Nonreligion? I also think that the name of the article [[Irreligion]] should be changed to [[Nonreligion]]. I would like to know your views. Regards, [[User:Masterpiece2000|Masterpiece2000]] ([[User talk:Masterpiece2000|talk]]) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Peter Rosenbrock]]

|align=center|[[Mick Twomey]]
== Image:Csa5-3.gif ==

Another editor reverted your correction of the image. I'm reverting it back to the one you posted from the archive. This way I don't have to delete the whole image from the CSA article as being inaccurate. [[User:Red Harvest|Red Harvest]] ([[User talk:Red Harvest|talk]]) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

== Chronology of Jesus ==

If you want to add tags that say "see talk page", you need to open a topic on the talk page, explaining in detail the concern you think should be discussed. Will you do that? [[User:Tb|Tb]] ([[User talk:Tb|talk]]) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Bethpage Purchase ==

I've been travelling and just had a chance to check out the Bethpage Purchase page. I think it's terrific. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.I had been thinking for a while that it needed it's own page, you beat me to it though. I'll take a closer look at it in the next few days. [[User:ButtonwoodTree|ButtonwoodTree]] ([[User talk:ButtonwoodTree|talk]]) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

== DYK: Bethpage Purchase ==

{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
|-
|-
|H/Backs
|[[Image:Updated DYK query.svg|15px|Updated DYK query]]
|align=center|[[Mike Delanty]]
|On [[18 April]], [[2008]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with {{#if:|facts|a fact}} from the article{{#if:|s|}} '''''[[Bethpage Purchase]]'''''{{#if:|{{#if:|, |, and}} '''''[[{{{4}}}]]'''''
|align=center|[[Bill Thripp]]
}}{{#if:|{{#if:|, |, and}} '''''[[{{{5}}}]]'''''
|align=center|[[Kevin Rose (Australian rules footballer)|Kevin Rose]]
}}{{#if:|, and '''''[[{{{6}}}]]'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
|-
|} <!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] --> --[[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] ([[User talk:PFHLai|talk]]) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
|Centre Line

|align=center|[[Brian Gray]]
== Space ==
|align=center|[[John Henderson (footballer)|John Henderson]]

|align=center|[[Errol Hutchesson]]
With all due respect. This isn't a 'can considered to be' this is an 'is'. The shape of space depends on the local gravity field. There's no fabric (so far as anyone knows anyway), but the shape ''is'' curved, and this isn't a matter of 'consideration', GR has very good experimental support, and that's what it predicts. GR is part of the standard model of physics.- ([[User:Wolfkeeper|User]]) '''WolfKeeper''' ([[User_talk:Wolfkeeper|Talk]]) 02:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|-

|H/Forwards
== Agnosticism ==
|align=center|[[Ken Turner (Australian rules footballer)|Ken Turner]]

|align=center|[[Murray Weideman]] (c)
Hello JimWae. How are you? Some people are including the views of Joseph Ratzinger in the article [[agnosticism]]. I strongly oppose that. Please help me. Regards, [[User:Masterpiece2000|Masterpiece2000]] ([[User talk:Masterpiece2000|talk]]) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Brian Beers]]

|-
*The agnosticism article needs to deal with points raised against agnosticism. Wiki guidelines state this ought to be done throughout the article, rather than all in one section (in this case, a section named Ratzinger). See the [[atheism]] article for an example of how to deal with criticisms throughout. Some of the criticisms are the same for both. The agnosticism article also needs more historical origins context, especially needing to deal with Kant & how Kant changed how people understood any claim to know anything metaphysical - including any deities. None of Ratzinger's criticisms are original with him, and attributing them to him is both an appeal to authority and grandstanding. Much of what is in the Ratzinger stuff is unsourced synthesis that is published only on blog-sites. I suspect much of it is a misinterpretation of Ratzinger. Ratzinger's essays are about relativism - which he attributes to certain people influenced by Kant. While R is aware of the importance of Kant, and while he attacks Kant's conclusions (without attacking his arguments), it appears R does not realize just how much he himself agrees with Kant. R does not understand the difference between philosophy & science, he misrepresents Kant and agnosticism, then the blog sites misrepresent R (see http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/ratzinger.htm for a non-blog source), then the blog content gets copied to wikipedia --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|Forwards

|align=center|[[Graeme Fellowes]]
Jim, noting this and your contributions to Christianity, among others, I wonder if you could have a look at [[Cafeteria Christianity]]. It looks to me like a bit of a POV mess, and yet I can't quite put a finger on what's wrong with it - I have flagged the Papal quotes as original research (since they do not refer to the phrase, but may be said to refer to the concept). It would be useful to have another perspective on this. Any thoughts? --[[User:Rbreen|Rbreen]] ([[User talk:Rbreen|talk]]) 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Ray Willett]]

|align=center|[[Keith Burns]]
== Space ==
|-

|Rucks/Rover
Hi Jim,
|align=center|[[Ray Gabelich]]

|align=center|[[Barry Harrison]]
When you get a moment it would be great to have your response to my comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space#Proposed_beginning_of_lede here]. Thanks [[User:Andeggs|Andeggs]] ([[User talk:Andeggs|talk]]) 08:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Ron O'Dwyer]]

|-
== More fun on [[dominion]] page ==
|Reserves

|align=center|[[Ian Brewer]]
I took up your point on pre-1907 usage with an etymology section and altering the lead to reflect this usage. Please comment, if you have time. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Bert Chapman]]

|align=center|
== [[Joseph Ratzinger]] at [[Truth]] ==
|-

|Coach
Thanks Jim for asking for the quotes. I have placed them at the talk page for you. [[User:Marax|Marax]] ([[User talk:Marax|talk]]) 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
|align=center|[[Phonse Kyne]]

|-
== [[Abraham Lincoln]] ==
|}

Umpire - [[Jack Irving]]
So why do you doubt Lincoln said that? [[User:TheBlazikenMaster|TheBlazikenMaster]] ([[User talk:TheBlazikenMaster|talk]]) 08:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- because 1> there is no source that says he said it & 2> he was not a member of Congress that year--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

== [[Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union]] ==

Hello JimWae, thanks for making several clarifying changes to this article.[[User:Odin 85th gen|Odin 85th gen]] ([[User talk:Odin 85th gen|talk]]) 20:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there will need to be even more talk on the article talk page --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 22:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the section [[Articles_of_Confederation#Historical_importance|Historical importance]] should be dropped, lest it become a battle ground about the legitimacy of a federal government! It was intended as a compromise, but is now repeatedly being subject to wholesale rewrites with POV and OR. This Article is not the right place to focus very heavily on the secession debate or the civil war. I simply referred to Lincoln's interpretation to draw out the historical relevance of the Articles concerning the evolution of the Union. [[User:PhilLiberty|PhilLiberty]] has since gone ''all out'' to prove how one-sided and wrong the argument is and in his enthusiasm he has taken the issue way beyond the scope of the article. In any event, you are doubtless right that using the talk page to remind of basic WP criteria and focus may help. [[User:Odin 85th gen|Odin 85th gen]] ([[User talk:Odin 85th gen|talk]]) 23:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

== [[Religion in the United States]] ==

Hi JimWae!
Thanks for your contribution, have you added this article to your watchlist yet?

[[User:Angelo De La Paz|Angelo De La Paz]] ([[User talk:Angelo De La Paz|talk]]) 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

== Semi-protection and block user ==

* I think you should asked admin to block [[Religion in the United States|this article]] in 2 weeks. Avoid hidden IP address and new [[WP:SOCK|cock puppetry]] accounts ([[Special:Contributions/Cassandraduress|Cassandraduress]] and [[Special:Contributions/WesKagle|WesKagle]]) of [[Special:Contributions/IbrahimMC|IbrahimMC]]. I've reported this user's violations in [[3RR]]. Now, I think you must called admin to block this user forver at [[WP:SSP]] because I don't know how to do it. Thank you!
[[User:Angelo De La Paz|Angelo De La Paz]] ([[User talk:Angelo De La Paz|talk]]) 01:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

== John Adams ==

Jim, Please see Independence Day talk page. Thanks [[User:Lperez2029|Lperez2029]] ([[User talk:Lperez2029|talk]]) 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

== DOI ==

Your summary [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=United_States_Declaration_of_Independence&diff=223951326&oldid=223905761 here] is odd - the disputed text does not appear in the given source. That's why I deleted the entire paragraph rather than toning down the POV [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

*The link the other guy gave is to a page with a link to where the AoC text is. ''I'' deleted the entire paragraph because it is not clear that the reference is to DoI rather than other events of that year. At first, DoI was not particularly noted. The 1777 AoC at http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/Organic%20Laws/artconf.pdf does refer to "the second year of independence ..." AND yes, I now see the other text he put in is not there either--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

::right - I added a note on ANI - don't really want to argue with someone who's making up his own facts. [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

*Well, the quote he has is just missing an ellipsis - but there is no reason to include the last part anyway. My objection is that it supports a year - but is only suggestive of a date within that year - and the suggestion is not strong enough to be included the way it is (& previously was: "A clear indication that the date of the inception of the United States was upon the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.") Without that overblown assertion, the relevance for inclusion is weak. The paragraph also begins with a nonsequential & disjointed "In addition..." --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


:The part of the quote " and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." isn't in the introduction and rationale, but comes from Article II. I believe it takes more than an ellipsis to splice together two separate parts of the document as though they were one statement. [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

*agreed - However, I could be wrong, but I do not think he is even aware that part is there. I think there'd be a dispute even if that part were omitted --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:There probably would be a dispute, since the non-quote portion is expressing a POV. But without a reliable (and pertinent) source, there's nothing in the paragraph which belongs in the topic. [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

== Minus zero ==

Just for info, the term "-0" is unique to computing. Some operating systems don't have a [[sign bit]] so theoretically they can't hold negative numbers. They solve this by using [[twos complement]] notation, where '111111111111111111111111111111111' has the same meaning as 0, except that it is "minus zero"! --[[User:Red King|Red King]] ([[User talk:Red King|talk]]) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== edit war ==

Does he ever violate 3RR? This is the safest and surest mechanism. I have encountered the type you describe, it borders on trolling but most admins would not say htis justifies a block. You could flag this at the Admin's noticeboard ... I am not absolutely sure but I believe there is a category for people who make disruptive edits, or who are non-collaborative. You may also be able to do an RfC. The point is, what you need at this stage is to get the attention of many other people, and many admins. I am going off-line soon but will look at what is going on there myself, later. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If he makes one edit a day, the easiest method is this: just revert him once a day ... or even once a week. You have been here forever and will be here a long time; you will likely win any waiting game. If you can put up with one revert a day I bet within a month he goes away - or seriously escalates to a point where you can call for an RfC or post something to AN. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

== Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks ==

I merged your comment there into another section where we have been discussing the opening sentence of the article. I'd prefer not to have the same discussion in two places. I hope that's ok with you. Cheers! [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 06:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I was addressing one specific, lame proposed change & the previous title "tv-episode" did not seem like the right place. There's more than "renaming" the article afoot --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

== Articles of Confederation ==

I have worked on a referral to the Administrators under the guidelines of [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]]. I will pull the trigger on that if Phil continues his edit warring. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:FYI I just made my second referral on 3R at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]]. The first one got lost in the shuffle. The recent referral is on [[United States Declaration of Independence]]. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

== NowCommons: [[:Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.JPG]] ==

[[:Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.JPG]] is now available on [[Wikimedia Commons]] as [[:Commons:Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.jpg]]. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: <nowiki>[[Image:BenjaminFranklinGrave.2005.jpg]]</nowiki>. Note that this is an automated message. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

== Confederate States of America ==

I saw that you put an Undue Weight claim on the article in the Religion, Slavery, and Secession. Hence, as I mentioned on the the discussion page, I will not remove my NPOV tag until the Undue Weight (which also falls under NPOV) is settled. Are you raising an objection to my future removal of the NPOV tag? If so, I will postpone removing it. The removal of it falls under MY responsibilty as I volunteered to remove it when all NPOV issues (including your Undue Weight claim) is resolved. --[[User:Coviepresb1647|Coviepresb1647]] ([[User talk:Coviepresb1647|talk]]) 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about your claim of generality and undue weight is taking place.--[[User:Coviepresb1647|Coviepresb1647]] ([[User talk:Coviepresb1647|talk]]) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== NPOV Problems ==

I think you have a history of problems with NPOV. Let's leave the [[Confederate States of America]] page alone. If you feel compelled to revise history, write a book.[[User:Grayghost01|Grayghost01]] ([[User talk:Grayghost01|talk]]) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

*Wikipedia is a co-operative project. Telling people to "go away" is no solution. The problem in this case is your wanting to present Confederate POV as fact --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

== Central Railroad of Long Island ==

Are you working on an article for the '''Central Railroad of Long Island''' by any chance? If so, my [[User:DanTD/Sandbox/List of stations on the LIRR Central Branch|list of stations]] is always available for the taking. ----[[User:DanTD|DanTD]] ([[User talk:DanTD|talk]]) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== Just an FYI ==

Although the charges are baseless, you were reported on [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War]] by [[User:Grayghost01]], in case you are interested in responding there. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== Sorry about the "final trigger" thing ==

I was trying to fix other things in the same section.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lincoln ==

I looked-up that you've made the most edits to the Abraham Lincoln article. I've made a few changes, mainly prettifying. The main obstacle to GA is the usual laborious task of adding inlines. Anyway thought i would let you know, kind regards [[User:Tpbradbury|Tom]] ([[User talk:Tpbradbury|talk]]) 22:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

== Read the dictionary, read the acts of congress ==

at [[http://www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com]]:

readmit - To admit again; to give entrance or access to again.
rejoin - to join together again; reunite.

admit defined as "entry", so readmit is synonymous with "reentry".

join is "bind", so rejoin is synonymous with "rebind".


Thus, I basically said Virginia "rejoined" or "rebinded". You say that is not NPOV, and your "readmit" or "reentry" is, because it supposedly doesn't imply that Virginia left. However, Virginia MUST have left if they need to be admitted again, or enter again. Whereas I used rejoined to infer the more sublety of binding again, that is to rebind. Thus the word I used means what you say you want it to mean, but you changed it to a word that you accused me of meaning.

Given the lack of fluency demonstrated, here, in the English language ... please consult some dictionaries before you embark upon future harrassment and provoking edits. And if you want the sentence to mean rebind vice reenter, you'll need to go undo your own goofy edit.

Finally, you might want to check the U.S. Congressional language. You seem to be unaware that acts of Congress were involved approving a NEW constitution for Virginia, as well as other things, so your goofy edit that congressmen were merely readmitted to the Congress is completely out-to-lunch compared to what actually happened historically. This historical fact is required learning for school kids in Virginia's Standards of Learning. It helps to have grown up here, because the locales know the history a little better than those from New York.

Please quit editing in your self-made Pseudo-History into the wiki articles, and go do some research first.

Thank you.
[[User:Grayghost01|Grayghost01]] ([[User talk:Grayghost01|talk]]) 02:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

== 1st Vandalism Warning ==

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop your disruptive editing{{#if:|, such as the edit you made to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If your [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] continues, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 -->.

If you care to discuss items on the talk page, that's fine. Meanwhile this is your first official warning. The Great Train Raid article is about that topic. Quit inserting your POV about Lincoln and Fort Sumter into that page. Go edit the Lincoln and Fort Sumter pages. That said, if all remains unvandalized, we can move some front end material into the Virginia page, however, your vandalism is occuring there too at the present moment. Thank you. [[User:Grayghost01|Grayghost01]] ([[User talk:Grayghost01|talk]]) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== 2nd Vandalism Warning ==

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop your disruptive editing{{#if:Virginia in the American Civil War|, such as the edit you made to [[:Virginia in the American Civil War]]}}. If your [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] continues, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 -->

Strike 2. [[User:Grayghost01|Grayghost01]] ([[User talk:Grayghost01|talk]]) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

===Reply===
*Go take a long walk. My edits are not vandalism --- AND I did not even edit any articles between your 2 warnings. You are abusing the process & it is you who is being disruptive to wikipedia --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War&diff=236716123&oldid=236214931 Here] are my recent edits to that article. Nobody in their right mind would consider any of that vandalism. Accusing me of vandalism for such edits amounts to a personal attack --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== FYI ==

I have filed a request at [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts]] regarding [[User:Grayghost01]]. I mentioned your name and provided diffs relating to his response to you in the request. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== Date formats after autoformatting ==

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

# Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
# For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
# Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
# Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Poll_on_guideline_for_writing_fixed-text_dates|here]], as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Battle of Marion]] ==

This (not very long) article is currently undergoing a Military history [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marion|A-class review]]. Would you have time to give a quick read through and see what could be improved as the main editor wishes to take it to featured article next? The prose could do with a massage too, especially the intro. Sorry to contact you out of the blue like this but I remembered your good work on the [[American Civil War]] article, which I have also edited. All the best, --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated, --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


== [[Ontology]] ==


==Awards==
* The 1960 VFL Premiership team was [[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]].
* The [[Coleman Medal|VFL's leading goalkicker]] was [[Ron Evans]] of [[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]] who kicked 67 goals.
* The winner of the 1960 [[Brownlow Medal]] was [[John Schultz]] of [[Footscray Football Club|Footscray]] with 20 votes.
* [[Richmond Football Club|Richmond]] took the "[[Wooden Spoon (award)|wooden spoon]]" in 1960.


==Notable Events==
My reply:
* The entire season is plagued by bad weather; this is reflected in the overall low scores of the full-forwards: [[Ron Evans]] ([[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]]) 67 goals in 18 games, [[Leo Brereton]] ([[Carlton Football Club|Carlton]]) 44 goals in 18 games, [[Max Oaten]] ([[Sydney Swans|South Melbourne]]) 39 goals in 18 games, [[Ian Ridley]] ([[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]) 38 goals in 20 games, [[John Dugdale]] ([[North Melbourne Football Club|North Melbourne]]) 38 goals in 13 games, [[Bill Young (Australian rules footballer)|Bill Young]] ([[St Kilda Football Club|St Kilda]]) 37 goals in 16 games, [[Ray Baxter]] ([[Western Bulldogs|Footscray]]) 37 goals in 15 games, and [[John Peck (Australian rules footballer)|John Peck]] ([[Hawthorn Football Club|Hawthorn]]) 29 goals in 18 games.
*Sorry, you feel that way. Yes, the article is a mess - but so is much of the literature on ontology. You will see that very few article on wikipedia quote specific dictionary definitions - and those that do, ought [[WP:Not a dictionary|not to]]. The entry just repeated what came before, but in fewer (and less explanatory) words - though I doubt, given the history of ontology, the article will ever clearly explain what ontology is --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 02:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
* [[John Kennedy, Sr.|John Kennedy]] takes over as coach of [[Hawthorn Football Club|Hawthorn]]. The flamboyant Hawthorn centreman, [[Brendan Edwards]], at the time a physical education teacher at the junior school of the nearby [[Swinburne University of Technology|Swinburne Technical College]], introduces circuit training.
*Do you really want to invest much of yourself in something taken from a dictionary? --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
* In the round 3 match between [[Hawthorn Football Club|Hawthorn]] and [[Western Bulldogs|Footscray]] at [[Glenferrie Oval]], Footscray defeats Hawthorn 6.17 (53) to 6.9 (45). The match was so affected by the strong wind conditions and, especially, the negative play of the Hawthorn back-line — at a time when one could kick the ball out of bounds on the full without penalty (the career-long defensive tactic of [[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]] back-man [[John Beckwith (footballer)|John Beckwith]]) — that the prescribed playing time of 100 minutes was extended by an astonishing 32 minutes and 33 seconds of "time on" (including 10 minutes 46 seconds in the first quarter alone), meaning that the match's playing time was extended by a total of one and one third quarters.
* In round 13 [[Hawthorn Football Club|Hawthorn]] beats [[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]] at [[Victoria Park, Melbourne|Victoria Park]] for the first time. Full forward [[John Peck (Australian rules footballer)|John Peck]] marked on the siren and kicked a goal. Hawthorn won by a point.
* The [[Brownlow Medal]] was won by [[Western Bulldogs|Footscray Football Club's]] ruckman [[John Schultz]]. Schultz was the second of the only two amateur players to win the Brownlow Medal, the first had been [[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne's]] [[Don Cordner]], also a ruckman, in 1946.
* Former classmates at [[Caulfield Grammar School]], [[John Schultz]] and [[Ron Evans]] win the [[Brownlow Medal]] and top the VFL Goalkicking List respectively in the same VFL season.
* [[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]] plays in its seventh successive Grand Final, thrashing [[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]] 8.14 (62) to 2.2 (14). Collingwood's low score is a Grand Final record.
* At the end of the 1960 season, the VFL estimated that the live telecast of the last quarter of three VFL matches each Saturday afternoon had cost at least 245,000 spectators. The VFL decided to discontinue this practice (which had been introduced in 1957).


==References==
== 3RR warrning for [[Atheism]] ==
* Rogers, S. & Brown, A., ''Every Game Ever Played: VFL/AFL Results 1897-1997 (Sixth Edition)'', Viking Books, (Ringwood), 1998. ISBN 0-670-90809-6
* Ross, J. (ed), ''100 Years of Australian Football 1897-1996: The Complete Story of the AFL, All the Big Stories, All the Great Pictures, All the Champions, Every AFL Season Reported'', Viking, (Ringwood), 1996. ISBN 0-670-86814-0
* Ross, J. (ed.), ''The Australian Football Hall of Fame'', HarperCollinsPublishers, (Pymble), 1999. ISBN 0-7322-6426-X


==External links==
Just a friendly reminder since you approach the limit
* [http://stats.rleague.com/afl/seas/1960.html 1960 Season - AFL Tables]


{{VFL/AFL_seasons}}
{{uw-3rr}} -- [[User:Man with one red shoe|man with one red shoe]] ([[User talk:Man with one red shoe|talk]]) 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Category:Australian Football League seasons|1960]]
Just how long do you think 24 hours is? --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae#top|talk]]) 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:1960 in Australia|VFL]]
[[Category:1960 in sports|VFL]]

Revision as of 02:34, 12 October 2008

Template:Infobox VFL Premiership Season Results and statistics for the VFL/AFL season of 1960.

Premiership season

In 1960, the VFL competition consisted of twelve teams of 18 on-the-field players each, plus two substitute players, known as the 19th man and the 20th man. A player could be substituted for any reason; however, once substituted, a player could not return to the field of play under any circumstances.

Teams played each other in a home-and-away season of 18 rounds; matches 12 to 18 were the "home-and-way reverse" of matches 1 to 7.

Once the 18 round home-and-away season had finished, the 1960 VFL Premiers were determined by the specific format and conventions of the "Page-McIntyre system".

Alterations to 1960 match fixtures

Round 1 of the 1960 competition was a split round, with 3 matches on Easter Saturday (16 April) and three matches on Easter Monday (18 April).

Round 2 of the competition was also a split round, with four matches scheduled for the Saturday (23 April) and two for the Monday (ANZAC Day, 25 April). The four Saturday matches were postponed because of the extremely wet conditions.

Despite pressure from the Victorian Premier, Henry Bolte, the VFL refused to play the four postponed matches on ANZAC Day (which, by custom, would have contributed to "patriotic funds"), and scheduled the postponed matches for the following Saturday (30 April). As a consequence of this delay all of the season's matches from round 3 to the Grand Final were actually played a week later than had been originally scheduled.

Round 1

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Essendon 12.21 (93) Hawthorn 9.12 (66) Windy Hill 23,000 16 April 1960
Collingwood 11.14 (80) Fitzroy 3.7 (25) Victoria Park 39,927 16 April 1960
South Melbourne 17.12 (114) St Kilda 8.15 (63) Lake Oval 28,100 16 April 1960
Melbourne 14.15 (99) North Melbourne 5.14 (44) MCG 36,766 18 April 1960
Footscray 15.7 (97) Geelong 10.6 (66) Western Oval 24,982 18 April 1960
Carlton 14.14 (98) Richmond 14.14 (98) Princes Park 31,000 18 April 1960

Round 2

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
St Kilda 5.18 (48) Melbourne 10.12 (72) Junction Oval 30,000 25 April 1960
Fitzroy 9.17 (71) Carlton 9.10 (64) Brunswick Street Oval 33,815 25 April 1960
Geelong 20.14 (134) South Melbourne 14.6 (90) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 16,370 30 April 1960
North Melbourne 6.17 (53) Footscray 14.15 (99) Arden Street Oval 20,150 30 April 1960
Richmond 5.15 (45) Essendon 25.20 (170) Punt Road Oval 31,000 30 April 1960
Hawthorn 6.16 (52) Collingwood 7.13 (55) Glenferrie Oval 30,000 30 April 1960

Round 3

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
North Melbourne 5.12 (42) Richmond 3.8 (26) Arden Street Oval 9,000 7 May 1960
Melbourne 16.14 (110) South Melbourne 6.10 (46) MCG 23,135 7 May 1960
Fitzroy 5.11 (41) Geelong 8.7 (55) Brunswick Street Oval 13,802 7 May 1960
Hawthorn 6.9 (45) Footscray 6.17 (53) Glenferrie Oval 16,000 7 May 1960
Essendon 11.10 (76) Collingwood 11.8 (74) Windy Hill 30,000 7 May 1960
St Kilda 5.11 (41) Carlton 7.3 (45) Junction Oval 18,700 7 May 1960

Round 4

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Geelong 4.14 (38) St Kilda 9.5 (59) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 12,795 14 May 1960
Collingwood 7.13 (55) Melbourne 2.7 (19) Victoria Park 28,263 14 May 1960
Carlton 5.18 (48) Hawthorn 5.7 (37) Princes Park 11,066 14 May 1960
South Melbourne 11.12 (78) North Melbourne 5.8 (38) Lake Oval 7,000 14 May 1960
Richmond 5.6 (36) Fitzroy 6.11 (47) Punt Road Oval 7,500 14 May 1960
Footscray 4.2 (26) Essendon 4.11 (35) Western Oval 24,302 14 May 1960

Round 5

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Richmond 7.5 (47) South Melbourne 4.7 (31) Punt Road Oval 12,500 21 May 1960
Hawthorn 5.7 (37) Melbourne 7.15 (57) Glenferrie Oval 12,500 21 May 1960
Fitzroy 11.9 (75) Footscray 5.6 (36) Brunswick Street Oval 17,102 21 May 1960
North Melbourne 10.6 (66) Geelong 7.9 (51) Arden Street Oval 8,500 21 May 1960
St Kilda 5.9 (39) Collingwood 4.13 (37) Junction Oval 28,600 21 May 1960
Essendon 17.13 (115) Carlton 11.14 (80) Windy Hill 26,300 21 May 1960

Round 6

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Melbourne 17.22 (124) Richmond 4.8 (32) MCG 27,249 28 May 1960
Footscray 6.11 (47) St Kilda 10.5 (65) Western Oval 22,126 28 May 1960
North Melbourne 7.6 (48) Hawthorn 9.8 (62) Arden Street Oval 8,600 28 May 1960
Fitzroy 8.7 (55) Essendon 6.14 (50) Brunswick Street Oval 25,632 28 May 1960
South Melbourne 12.8 (80) Collingwood 11.12 (78) Lake Oval 27,000 28 May 1960
Geelong 17.17 (119) Carlton 10.14 (74) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 16,589 28 May 1960

Round 7

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Essendon 9.15 (69) Melbourne 10.11 (71) Windy Hill 32,500 4 June 1960
Collingwood 12.16 (88) North Melbourne 16.8 (104) Victoria Park 23,740 4 June 1960
Carlton 11.13 (79) South Melbourne 13.13 (91) Princes Park 24,465 4 June 1960
Hawthorn 14.15 (99) Geelong 14.13 (97) Glenferrie Oval 16,500 4 June 1960
Richmond 6.13 (49) Footscray 11.15 (81) Punt Road Oval 16,000 4 June 1960
St Kilda 13.12 (90) Fitzroy 9.12 (66) Junction Oval 26,250 4 June 1960

Round 8

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
North Melbourne 13.12 (90) St Kilda 13.14 (92) Arden Street Oval 17,500 11 June 1960
Hawthorn 13.18 (96) Richmond 11.15 (81) Glenferrie Oval 12,000 11 June 1960
Melbourne 10.15 (75) Footscray 6.8 (44) MCG 35,539 11 June 1960
South Melbourne 13.12 (90) Fitzroy 13.13 (91) Lake Oval 21,500 11 June 1960
Geelong 11.17 (83) Essendon 14.10 (94) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 24,119 11 June 1960
Collingwood 16.14 (110) Carlton 10.13 (73) Victoria Park 29,853 11 June 1960

Round 9

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Fitzroy 10.8 (68) Melbourne 16.14 (110) Brunswick Street Oval 23,233 18 June 1960
Essendon 13.10 (88) South Melbourne 12.15 (87) Windy Hill 21,000 18 June 1960
Carlton 18.12 (120) North Melbourne 8.15 (63) Princes Park 13,897 18 June 1960
St Kilda 7.13 (55) Hawthorn 8.19 (67) Junction Oval 23,900 18 June 1960
Richmond 11.17 (83) Geelong 12.11 (83) Punt Road Oval 13,000 18 June 1960
Footscray 8.19 (67) Collingwood 10.14 (74) Western Oval 28,098 18 June 1960

Round 10

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Geelong 6.5 (41) Melbourne 12.11 (83) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 17,934 25 June 1960
Carlton 11.14 (80) Footscray 7.8 (50) Princes Park 26,979 25 June 1960
South Melbourne 11.7 (73) Hawthorn 13.6 (84) Lake Oval 22,300 25 June 1960
Fitzroy 20.10 (130) North Melbourne 15.18 (108) Brunswick Street Oval 15,747 2 July 1960
Essendon 12.4 (76) St Kilda 10.14 (74) Windy Hill 25,700 2 July 1960
Richmond 12.12 (84) Collingwood 14.13 (97) Punt Road Oval 28,000 2 July 1960

Round 11

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Footscray 7.12 (54) South Melbourne 8.9 (57) Western Oval 15,322 9 July 1960
Collingwood 13.16 (94) Geelong 10.13 (73) Victoria Park 20,915 9 July 1960
St Kilda 14.15 (99) Richmond 4.18 (42) Junction Oval 16,500 9 July 1960
Hawthorn 10.9 (69) Fitzroy 12.14 (86) Glenferrie Oval 18,000 9 July 1960
North Melbourne 12.11 (83) Essendon 14.14 (98) Arden Street Oval 15,000 9 July 1960
Melbourne 9.17 (71) Carlton 6.22 (58) MCG 29,741 9 July 1960

Round 12

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
St Kilda 11.13 (79) South Melbourne 9.3 (57) Junction Oval 24,700 16 July 1960
North Melbourne 9.19 (73) Melbourne 15.13 (103) Arden Street Oval 9,600 16 July 1960
Geelong 11.13 (79) Footscray 8.4 (52) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 14,388 16 July 1960
Hawthorn 10.13 (73) Essendon 16.11 (107) Glenferrie Oval 23,500 16 July 1960
Fitzroy 17.10 (112) Collingwood 13.18 (96) Brunswick Street Oval 30,080 16 July 1960
Richmond 8.8 (56) Carlton 15.20 (110) Punt Road Oval 13,500 16 July 1960

Round 13

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Melbourne 6.13 (49) St Kilda 6.9 (45) MCG 42,935 23 July 1960
Footscray 9.10 (64) North Melbourne 9.8 (62) Western Oval 14,133 23 July 1960
Essendon 16.16 (112) Richmond 10.10 (70) Windy Hill 17,000 23 July 1960
Collingwood 7.15 (57) Hawthorn 7.16 (58) Victoria Park 18,637 23 July 1960
Carlton 5.10 (40) Fitzroy 12.12 (84) Princes Park 26,796 23 July 1960
South Melbourne 10.20 (80) Geelong 11.13 (79) Lake Oval 8,350 23 July 1960

Round 14

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Footscray 5.9 (39) Hawthorn 9.21 (75) Western Oval 16,794 30 July 1960
Collingwood 9.11 (65) Essendon 6.9 (45) Victoria Park 39,110 30 July 1960
Carlton 10.12 (72) St Kilda 11.17 (83) Princes Park 24,684 30 July 1960
Richmond 9.13 (67) North Melbourne 12.7 (79) Punt Road Oval 8,500 30 July 1960
South Melbourne 10.10 (70) Melbourne 16.13 (109) Lake Oval 18,000 30 July 1960
Geelong 7.11 (53) Fitzroy 14.11 (95) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 15,022 30 July 1960

Round 15

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
North Melbourne 14.16 (100) South Melbourne 9.20 (74) Arden Street Oval 10,000 6 August 1960
Fitzroy 13.13 (91) Richmond 10.11 (71) Brunswick Street Oval 14,232 6 August 1960
Essendon 14.11 (95) Footscray 8.10 (58) Windy Hill 21,000 6 August 1960
St Kilda 9.16 (70) Geelong 13.9 (87) Junction Oval 16,300 6 August 1960
Melbourne 16.15 (111) Collingwood 9.11 (65) MCG 81,099 6 August 1960
Hawthorn 13.10 (88) Carlton 9.7 (61) Glenferrie Oval 16,000 6 August 1960

Round 16

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Geelong 10.14 (74) North Melbourne 4.10 (34) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 9,445 13 August 1960
Collingwood 8.12 (60) St Kilda 7.7 (49) Victoria Park 22,640 13 August 1960
Carlton 7.15 (57) Essendon 6.8 (44) Princes Park 16,291 13 August 1960
South Melbourne 13.13 (91) Richmond 7.12 (54) Lake Oval 6,109 13 August 1960
Melbourne 9.13 (67) Hawthorn 11.10 (76) MCG 24,646 13 August 1960
Footscray 4.6 (30) Fitzroy 7.11 (53) Western Oval 12,013 13 August 1960

Round 17

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Hawthorn 9.17 (71) North Melbourne 8.4 (52) Glenferrie Oval 13,000 20 August 1960
Essendon 9.7 (61) Fitzroy 10.12 (72) Windy Hill 29,500 20 August 1960
Collingwood 8.3 (51) South Melbourne 5.9 (39) Victoria Park 22,267 20 August 1960
Carlton 9.12 (66) Geelong 5.6 (36) Princes Park 17,100 20 August 1960
Richmond 9.14 (68) Melbourne 8.12 (60) Punt Road Oval 8,000 20 August 1960
St Kilda 9.9 (63) Footscray 6.15 (51) Junction Oval 16,100 20 August 1960

Round 18

Home team Home team score Away team Away team score Venue Crowd Date
Geelong 9.9 (63) Hawthorn 14.12 (96) Kardinia Park (Stadium) 14,857 27 August 1960
Footscray 18.9 (117) Richmond 11.11 (77) Western Oval 12,419 27 August 1960
Fitzroy 9.16 (70) St Kilda 6.9 (45) Brunswick Street Oval 19,507 27 August 1960
Melbourne 10.5 (65) Essendon 10.18 (78) MCG 50,274 27 August 1960
North Melbourne 6.8 (44) Collingwood 11.12 (78) Arden Street Oval 27,000 27 August 1960
South Melbourne 8.8 (56) Carlton 11.9 (75) Lake Oval 11,000 27 August 1960

Ladder

Team Won Lost Draw For Agst % Points
1 Melbourne 14 4 0 1455 1017 143.1 56
2 Fitzroy 14 4 0 1332 1184 112.5 56
3 Essendon 13 5 0 1506 1204 125.1 52
4 Collingwood 11 7 0 1314 1150 114.3 44
5 Hawthorn 11 7 0 1251 1192 104.9 44
6 St Kilda 9 9 0 1159 1140 101.7 36
7 Carlton 8 9 1 1300 1313 99.0 34
8 South Melbourne 7 11 0 1304 1413 92.3 28
9 Geelong 6 11 1 1311 1373 95.5 26
10 Footscray 6 12 0 1065 1178 90.4 24
11 North Melbourne 5 13 0 1183 1474 80.3 20
12 Richmond 2 14 2 1086 1628 66.7 12

Consolation Night Series Competition

The night series were held under the floodlights at Lake Oval, South Melbourne, for the teams (5th to 12th on ladder) out of the finals at the end of the season.

Final: South Melbourne 10.12 (70) defeated Hawthorn 8.11 (59)

Premiership Finals

First Semi-Final

Team 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr Final
Essendon 2.6 6.9 7.13 7.15 (57)
Collingwood 2.7 5.9 6.12 9.12 (66)
Attendance: 81,209

Second Semi-Final

Team 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr Final
Melbourne 3.6 6.12 11.15 14.18 (102)
Fitzroy 1.2 2.6 2.12 4.16 (40)
Attendance: 79,796

Preliminary Final

Team 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr Final
Fitzroy 2.2 7.3 8.7 8.12 (60)
Collingwood 2.1 6.4 7.5 9.11 (65)
Attendance: 65,301

Grand Final

See List of Australian Football League premiers for a complete list.

Team 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr Final
Melbourne 4.3 5.5 7.12 8.14 (62)
Collingwood 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.2 (14)
Attendance: 97,457

Grand Final Teams

Melbourne
Backs John Beckwith Tassie Johnson Trevor Johnson
H/Backs Geoff Case John Lord Ian Thorogood
Centre Line Brian Dixon Laurie Mithen Bryan Kenneally
H/Forwards Geoff Tunbridge Clyde Laidlaw Hassa Mann
Forwards Bob B. Johnson Alan Rowarth Frank 'Bluey' Adams
Rucks/Rover Len Mann Ron Barassi (c) Ian Ridley
Reserves Brian Leahy Ray Nilsson
Coach Norm Smith
Collingwood
Backs Ron Reeves Peter Rosenbrock Mick Twomey
H/Backs Mike Delanty Bill Thripp Kevin Rose
Centre Line Brian Gray John Henderson Errol Hutchesson
H/Forwards Ken Turner Murray Weideman (c) Brian Beers
Forwards Graeme Fellowes Ray Willett Keith Burns
Rucks/Rover Ray Gabelich Barry Harrison Ron O'Dwyer
Reserves Ian Brewer Bert Chapman
Coach Phonse Kyne

Umpire - Jack Irving

Awards

Notable Events

  • The entire season is plagued by bad weather; this is reflected in the overall low scores of the full-forwards: Ron Evans (Essendon) 67 goals in 18 games, Leo Brereton (Carlton) 44 goals in 18 games, Max Oaten (South Melbourne) 39 goals in 18 games, Ian Ridley (Melbourne) 38 goals in 20 games, John Dugdale (North Melbourne) 38 goals in 13 games, Bill Young (St Kilda) 37 goals in 16 games, Ray Baxter (Footscray) 37 goals in 15 games, and John Peck (Hawthorn) 29 goals in 18 games.
  • John Kennedy takes over as coach of Hawthorn. The flamboyant Hawthorn centreman, Brendan Edwards, at the time a physical education teacher at the junior school of the nearby Swinburne Technical College, introduces circuit training.
  • In the round 3 match between Hawthorn and Footscray at Glenferrie Oval, Footscray defeats Hawthorn 6.17 (53) to 6.9 (45). The match was so affected by the strong wind conditions and, especially, the negative play of the Hawthorn back-line — at a time when one could kick the ball out of bounds on the full without penalty (the career-long defensive tactic of Melbourne back-man John Beckwith) — that the prescribed playing time of 100 minutes was extended by an astonishing 32 minutes and 33 seconds of "time on" (including 10 minutes 46 seconds in the first quarter alone), meaning that the match's playing time was extended by a total of one and one third quarters.
  • In round 13 Hawthorn beats Collingwood at Victoria Park for the first time. Full forward John Peck marked on the siren and kicked a goal. Hawthorn won by a point.
  • The Brownlow Medal was won by Footscray Football Club's ruckman John Schultz. Schultz was the second of the only two amateur players to win the Brownlow Medal, the first had been Melbourne's Don Cordner, also a ruckman, in 1946.
  • Former classmates at Caulfield Grammar School, John Schultz and Ron Evans win the Brownlow Medal and top the VFL Goalkicking List respectively in the same VFL season.
  • Melbourne plays in its seventh successive Grand Final, thrashing Collingwood 8.14 (62) to 2.2 (14). Collingwood's low score is a Grand Final record.
  • At the end of the 1960 season, the VFL estimated that the live telecast of the last quarter of three VFL matches each Saturday afternoon had cost at least 245,000 spectators. The VFL decided to discontinue this practice (which had been introduced in 1957).

References

  • Rogers, S. & Brown, A., Every Game Ever Played: VFL/AFL Results 1897-1997 (Sixth Edition), Viking Books, (Ringwood), 1998. ISBN 0-670-90809-6
  • Ross, J. (ed), 100 Years of Australian Football 1897-1996: The Complete Story of the AFL, All the Big Stories, All the Great Pictures, All the Champions, Every AFL Season Reported, Viking, (Ringwood), 1996. ISBN 0-670-86814-0
  • Ross, J. (ed.), The Australian Football Hall of Fame, HarperCollinsPublishers, (Pymble), 1999. ISBN 0-7322-6426-X

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimWae&oldid=244696824"