User talk:JacobTrue

Just want to let you know
Hi, I just want to let you know that you are on my watchlist so if you need anything or there is a problem I hopefully can help you out. You might want to put something on your user page so that you are not a red link. You can either put something there that you are interested in put there or you can put something as simple as a period which will make your page blue like your talk page is. Just a suggestion. I hope you enjoy your time here, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. And thank you. I've heard about how being a red link makes experienced editors less trusting of you. It gives off a newbie/inexperienced factor most experienced editors don't like. JacobTrue (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no that's not why. There are editors who do vandal patrol, like I do.  When an editor with a red link is there it's kind of a red flag to check it out.  The reason being is a lot of vandals don't bother with removing the red links because the accounts are what we call throw away accounts.  They plan to use the account until they get blocked and than they usually start up a new one and their game starts all over again.  That is why I suggested putting a period or something about yourself on your user page.  I hope I've explained this so you understand better what I was saying.  Happy editing, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, to me, what you said sounds just like what I said. That "being a red link makes experienced editors less trusting of you." You said, " When an editor with a red link is there it's kind of a red flag to check it out." And then you explained why. JacobTrue (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

re your edits at 'Sexual intercourse'
[redacted warning] I would note that I referred to BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in my edit summary, also questioning the removal of the link to Human sexual activity (and not the wording regarding vaginal intercourse). I would again draw your attention to WP:BRD, as a WP:BOLD edit such as yours may be reverted and then a discussion initiated. The lede of the article has long had Consensus and it needs to be shown that a new consensus exists for the proposed amendment. This can be done either by a WP:BOLD edit being unchallenged or following a discussion; and since I have challenged the edit then the proper response would be for you to start a discussion (since you are the one seeking to change the consensus) providing your rationale. I would note that edit summaries relating to a revert do not constitute a discussion. As the other party to a potential edit war I am not going to revert you, but would warn you that reverting other editors return to the former status quo may well be interpreted as edit warring and you may have your account accordingly blocked. I suggest that it is prudent that you return the article lede to that before your edit, and to start a discussion regarding your proposed changes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm in an edit war, then so are you. If you'd looked in the edit history, you'd see I was changing the lead back to the consensus version. It was changed by User:Unreal7, who has unreal edits indeed. Just look at that user's talk page. It is completely illogical to add in "also known as vaginal intercourse" when the rest of the line says "commonly refers to the act in which a male's penis penetrates a female's vagina." Furthermore, I explained to you in my edit summary that it is non-neutral because right after saying "Sexual intercourse," it says "also known as vaginal intercourse." Sexual intercourse is not simply known as vaginal intercourse. The intro is clear about that. The lead I was reverting to is more neutral because it does not seemingly designate sexual intercourse as only vaginal intercourse. Instead, it says "commonly refers to." And one last thing I objected to about Unreal7's edit is how it also designated "sex" as commonly meaning vaginal intercourse. "Sex" is more general and can commonly mean any type of outercourse as well, and the intro already addresses it in a better fashion. JacobTrue (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon review I note that you are correct and have redacted the warning and struck my comments. I apologise for not assuming good faith - and littering your page with links to policy pages, etc. I trust that this experience has not soured your perception of Wikipedia too much. I still consider that removing the link to human sexual activity is not optimum, but I think I should leave such editorial decisions to those with some history of content editing. Again, I am sorry that I so misunderstood the situation and acted in the manner I did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I'm not too soured to Wikipedia by this. I probably should have reverted him the old-fashioned way, where it can immediately be seen that it's a revert. But I decided to make room in my edit summary to explain why I was making the revert. I also understand what you mean about WP:BRD. I read it. I just felt it was okay to go ahead and revert one more time with an explanation without cluttering the talk page.


 * Thank you. JacobTrue (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)