User talk:Jxm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jxm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Ali-oops^✍ 12:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1 Behe's postulation
2 My edit
3 Tombolo
4 Cupertino
5 Gay Future
6 Your RfA
7 Fidel talk page
8 SRI
9 SRI & Psychic Research
10 Remote Viewing

[edit] Behe's postulation

There's really nothing that has to do with time travel and biology in Hitchhiker's, which was the first half of my point. It sounds a LOT more to me like the plot from a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, specifically The Chase. The story has to do with a race of humanoids who seeded their DNA on many world in the Milky Way Galaxy, such that lifeforms who would eventually evolve there would look a lot like them (which was a pseudo-sci-fi way of explaining why so many aliens looked alike - there was a star trek joke for a while that the only way to tell the aliens apart was by their forehead makeups - basically they couldn't afford the makeup or effects budget to have "aliens" that appeared a LOT different than two-armed, two-legged humans). I can see where the postulation would derive from sci-fi concepts, but I just don't see anything in Adams's works (MAYBE in the first Dirk Gently novel, but that's a stretch) that would fit. --JohnDBuell 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

ID in pop fiction on Talk:Intelligent_design for continuing this strand. Ck lostsword 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edit

Hello. I have reverted it cause that edit have been made by prolific vandal IP, that's all. If the info I deleted was correct, just put it back. - Darwinek 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The address 207.200.116.196 seems to be somewhere in AOL, so it's probably linked to multiple independent users. I'll fix the Loma Prieta entry in a little while. JXM 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tombolo

Tombolo for Howth - nice one!!! Cheers ww2censor 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cupertino

Thank you for the welcome :-) - Alison^✍ 04:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Future

There have been other betting coups based on what is sometimes called `manipulation' of Tote odds. I think there was one at Mullingar greyhound track - Francis Hyland's recent book Taken For A Ride: Betting Coups and Scandals might give you the details. I've loaned my copy to a friend so cannot check it right now. Hyland also covers the Gay Future case. Most off-course betting shops historically did not take bets at Tote odds until improvements in technology in recent years allowed them to transmit bets directly into the Tote pools.

My recollection of the Gay Future case is that the bets were all Starting Price (fixed odds) doubles and trebles. Those involved may have managed to disrupt communications to the course to prevent the off-course firms from hedging in the on-course fixed odds market, thereby reducing Gay Future's SP. I think they also backed another horse in the on-course market, possibly a former stablemate of Gay Future, which helped to keep the price of the winner at about 10/1. The off-course winnings, if paid out, would have been far larger than the on-course investment needed to influence the SP.

This is all from memory. I'll edit the article again when I get my hands on a more reliable published source!

Pwaldron 09:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understood that Starting Prices were basically defined by the final (i.e. at the start of the race) odds from the on-course Tote bets, and that off-course bookies simply followed those odds. But the WP definition is somewhat different, and so that may not be correct -- I'm not "in that line of business", so to speak! I believe y're right about the other horse in the race; the accomplices would have needed to create a "false favourite" that would assuredly not win. I'm looking forward to your further input. JXM 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

- The Wikipedia articles on betting do need a lot of polishing up! I've already made a few changes which will hopefully go a little way to stress the differences between fixed-odds/starting-price betting and pari-mutuel/tote betting. Pwaldron 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Hello. I wold suggest withdrawing your RfA as you have only 500 edits, no participation in XFD and are not really active enough on Wikipeda to be given admin tools and to be honest you show no real need for the tools. No offence was meant to be caused by this message and happy editing!! Telly addict 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

JXM, I've withdrawn your Request for Adminship because it was bound to fail. Don't be discouraged. Thanks for helping with wikipedia! - Richard Cavell 01:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both (and the others) for all your feedback. I'll keep on hacking at it, and circle back again sometime in the future. JXM 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel talk page

I deleted it because it had no merit to the article and the guy or girl who posted it had no follow up after he stated that information, like what he wanted us to do with it. I deemed it unnecessary and undid it. IamMcLovin 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

JxM it would seem that IamMcLovin is far too interested in covering up documentation of the fact that Fidel Castro was illegitimate, and this as a number of biographers have considered was a fact strongly influencing Castro's psyche in his formative years and thus his actions after that. El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what my interests are, but I frankly don't care too much about one small Caribbean island. Give me a good reason or suggestion about what we might do with your contribution to the talk page, and then I will do my best (as will others) to accommodate into the article. That is all I ask. Thank you.IamMcLovin 23:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamMcLovin (talk • contribs)

[edit] SRI

It should be in remote viewing in place of the fluff that's there now, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably.... but at the moment, that would mean the material being merged from the new Early psi research at SRI article becomes subject to the POV tag, since this covers the whole RV entry. Perhaps, within the WP peer review process, someone can first verify that the info in the new article is a reasonable, NPOV interpretation of the referenced mainstream science publications. After that, maybe we can do the merge and restrict the POV tagging simply to the other parts of the RV entry. jxm (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SRI & Psychic Research

That was not what I read. I merged it back into SRI, as it was a POV fork of SRI, not of some psychic article. Merging it back into remote viewing makes no sense, because that would not be a reason to delete, and it was posted at WP:AFD. If you don't like how it reads now, cut down the finished article. Be bold. Or cut and paste to remote viewing. If people don't like how things get merged at the end of an AfD discussion, they should not nominate articles for deletion, when you really meant to merge. Both AfD and WP:PM are horribly backlogged, so it is time to move on. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was fixing one problem, and look what a mess I've gotten myself into! I would never have seen that coming, pardon the pun. LOL. Look: cut, copy, and paste as needed. I don't get involved in content disputes if I can avoid it, which is what it appears to be. I suggest you get Guy involved on this to reduce some of the cruft in both remaining articles. The POV issue will settle itself. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I am sorry to dump this back on your lap. My AfD closure seems to be in order, but the real problem seem (to me) to be a POV-pusher. Any further way I can get involved without messing up even more? Bearian (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remote Viewing

The Remote Viewing entry is a mess! The Stargate Project and AIR study info does NOT belong there. It is even there TWICE! At RV there should be a link to Stargate and that's it. There's a hurry to tell of the closing of Stargate at RV. Ingo Swann came up with 2 different methods of remote viewing. This material is important. The methods explain a lot. Editors are not examining the RV literature written by the viewers. There is a lot there. Its been fun but I've had enough RV for the moment. I have some magic to study. I'll get back to Mr. Swann's legacy later. I asked a friend of mine: Do you think it is possible Swann pulled the wool over the eyes of the parapsychological community and the CIA? His reply was interesting. It was not yes or no. It was an emotional "bullshit!" What ever happened to that bit about having an open mind? Kazuba (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.