User talk:Jess

Climate Opinion
There is no scientific consensus on Climate Change, that is a debunked myth and has been widely diseminated as such.

http://noconsensus.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieMusk (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Please see WP:WEIGHT. It is important on wikipedia to represent views in proportion to their prominence in academic sources. In this case, the academic literature on this topic is quite clear. Yes, there are sources that dispute the widely held academic view, but they represent a fringe point of view. You are welcome to discuss this with other editors on the talk page (Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Jess, I think your characterization of my changes as "an edit war" is extreme. You made several misreadings of references and each time deleted an entry in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything at AN3, but I'd advise against going there. You should read WP:EW; this dispute absolutely falls under "edit warring", as it is repeated reverts and reintroduction of the same content. Removing controversial content relating to living people is an explicit exemption, which covers my reverts, but not your reintroduction of the content. I'm happy to discuss the matter with you on the talk page, and I'd be perfectly happy to be shown how Oppenheimer fits our inclusion criteria, but until you've shown that, implying in any way that he's a climate change skeptic (which could impact his reputation as a respected scientist working in climate change) is inappropriate. Please lean on the talk page, and not on reverting. We'll figure this out, but you've got to work together with other editors to make that happen.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved the discussion here, since this is the account I've been using for these edits. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Les Woodcock
I've mentioned you at Articles for deletion/Leslie V. Woodcock. YoPienso (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! I'm aware of the AfD, but haven't made up my mind yet which way to !vote. I'll probably show up there in the next day or so once my RL commitments settle down. Anyway, I appreciate the notice!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC for Climate change denial
Your question in the RfC is "Should climate change skepticism, and similar redirects, point to this article, or to Global warming controversy?" It's difficult for some editors to decide how to answer, because it's not strictly a yes or no question. (For me, "yes" means "yes to the first part", but not everyone reads that way.) Could you change it to a question that is, and state the changes you've made? I think one way would be to do this

and then note directly under the question that part of the original was struck out to make it a yes or no question. You can discuss redirecting to Global warming controversy as a possible next step if the RfC is declined. Roches (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Roches. Thanks for the input. I provided both options in the hopes that the question would not appear one-sided. My assumption was that !votes would come in any of the forms: "Support X", "Support Y", "Oppose X", "Oppose Y". Understandably, that's not as clear as a simple "Support" or "Oppose". Personally, I don't know that I see it as a major problem, but since you feel it may cause confusion, I'll try the change. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Um. I don't understand the new yes / no question. If you answer "no, it should not point to this article", are you voting for it to continue to point to GWC, or are you voting for it to stop being a redirect? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How about "...similar redirects, point to this article (support) or to Global warming controversy (oppose)?" Or was the original wording better in your view, William?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It made more sense to me in the original form; but I think the version you've written above is equivalent to the original William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, let me try that., I hope that works for you!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Firefighting apparatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Creationismm
Hi, Jess, I've noticed your work, and we have occasionally overlapped, mostly on reverting POV edits. I am writing to you to express some concern about the creationism article, what with its description as "pseudoscience" not made in the lead until the third paragraph, and, then, only as a "labeling". It seems to me that creationism is more than, as it is described in the first sentence of the articles, a "religious belief". Instead, it has pseudoscientific dimensions, and, as such, this should be made clear, up-front, in the first sentence. Before raising this on the talk page of creationism, where fur might fly, I thought I'd sound this out with you. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for the note. It's good to run into you again! :) I agree that we can do a better job at Creationism... skimming it just now, there's still a lot of work to do! It will take some care to label it the right way. My understanding is that some forms of creationism are pseudoscience, but others are simply "not science" (not pseudoscience). For instance, creation science and intelligent design are obviously pseudoscience, but a random southern pastor might just believe in a creator god without claiming his views are scientific; some creationists advocate for NOMA, or outright disclaim any scientific credence for their beliefs, and we should consider their views in our coverage too.


 * So, two things: I don't think "Creationism is the pseudoscience..." is correct. I could be wrong, but I'd have to see the sourcing. On the other hand, "...creation science [has] been labelled "pseudoscience" by scientists" falls completely afoul of WP:WEIGHT. Since such a large part of public creationism does make claims about the science, we should probably incorporate the scientific community's reception much earlier than the 3rd paragraph. I imagine the best way to do that would be to briefly discuss the divisions of creationism, and label those which are pseudoscience accordingly. I agree this should be a prominent part of our coverage.


 * I'm pretty busy this week (finishing up some work, and a lot of personal projects), but I'm hoping to be back to my normal schedule in a few days. If you need any help, or want additional input, feel free to let me know! Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Afd question.
You posted ''Huh? His article explicitly discusses this book in the lead and body. I'm suggesting that we move coverage of the book to his bio, instead of having a whole separate article. How would that obscure anything in his bio? ''


 * 1) Get the article about the book deleted.
 * 2) Argue that because the book is non-notable, so doesn't deserve mention in the article.

Hard to start with step 2, when there's an article on the book. I hope that wasn't your intention but when you claim an author who is written a book on global warming hasn't published works in the field of climate change, I don't want to take anything for granted.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ...yea, WP:AGF is a good read. Notability does not mean significance, and whether we have an article on a subject doesn't necessarily reflect on its notability. On top of that, the book in question is not a "published work in the field of climate change," it's a book advocating climate change denial. And even if none of that were true, I explicitly advocated moving the content to the bio, which means discussing the book more, not less. The scheme you're crafting for me is a poor one, and I'm fairly obviously not engaging in it. Seriously, please stop treating me like I'm your opponent.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, please stop trying to characterize my intentions. You aren't very good at it, and it distracts from the goal.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  05:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't characterize your intentions. What? You "subtly" suggested that deleting the book served my interests, and then laid out a scheme above where I might be deleting one article in the hopes of slyly swaying content in another. That's an insane plan, and the accusation falls completely afoul of WP:AGF. Please don't come to my talk page making these kind of accusations in the future.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism
Hi Jess. You ok with wording "Richard Dawkins rejects this criticism, writing that evolution as a process is able to develop both selfish and altruistic traits in organisms" in criticism of atheism article? Reads better to me as it names the source to which the citation points. Regards, Ozhistory (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for reaching out. The question isn't "Did Dawkins say this?" The question is "is this view fringe, minority, or a majority view within the relevant community?" We should follow WP:YESPOV: if it is a minority view, we should attribute it to Dawkins; if the view is basically ubiquitous among evolutionary biologists/atheists/whatever, then we should not attribute it. I'm not 100% familiar with the literature on this point... so, to answer your question, I don't know how we should do it, but I don't see a big problem from my current vantage point. I'd say go ahead and make that change, and we'll see how others feel. I'll participate on Talk:Criticism of atheism if you start a discussion there. All the best.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus and sources concerning historicity of resurrection.
Jess, would you mind having a look at the article on Jesus. I'm currently engaged in an exchange with an editor concerning a section in the historicity of the resurrection. I don't know what you opinion is on these sorts of things, but I do know that you respect reliable sources. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Isambard. Sorry I didn't get back to you. Am I making a habit of this?! ugh! I saw you pop up in my watchlist and remembered. With the new year, I have a bit more time on my hands. I'll see if I can drop by that page soon. Thanks for the note!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, i really appreciate your input on the ExxonMobil and Talk:ExxonMobil pages. I think it needs a lot of editorial support from people who are really neutrally applying the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, especially WP:NPOV to reflect reliable sources accurately. Thanks for taking your time to do so. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's been on my watchlist for a while, but I hadn't gotten around to contributing. Just as a note, it's sometimes best with these sorts of issues to take things slow. Sometimes very slow. I saw a few complaints that you started multiple sections on the same topic in a short period of time, but that sort of approach won't usually make your job easier. I've noticed that adjusting my own approach to editing can make a world of difference in how easy it is to get things done, and how much I enjoy my time here. I haven't read the whole page, so that advice may or may not apply to you, I'm just commenting based on the complaints in the RfC. Anyway, it's been good working with you. I'm sure I'll see you around again! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ExxonMobil climate change controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Black. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Misdirected comments
If not already, I think you might wish to be aware of the recent activity on this page. Cheers. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General  ‖ 02:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep. I watchlist that page, but wasn't online at the time. Thank you for the reverts! And the notice, of course! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoology and Pseudoscience
Thanks for keeping an eye on cryptozoology. I've been going through and deboning articles that were built on cryptozoologist sources for a long time now. Recently I turned my attention to some articles on figures particularly well known to North American audiences, such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Champ (folklore). All of which were completely infused with this nonsense rather than, say, material from academics working on figures from folklore—folklorists. These internet "cryptozoologists" have been busy on Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I add a bunch of material from a biologist and folklorist to the cryptozoologist article and you edit-war it away? What's your deal? Are you here to troll this article or what? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First, sorry I didn't respond to your first post 4 days ago. I forgot about it until just now. Second, cut out the accusations. It is toxic to the environment, and contrary to our policies on civility. I'm not going to continue working with you if you can't calm down and work collaboratively. Take a breather and come back if you need to.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion continues on the cryptozoology talk page. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Tags
Did you miss the part on the tags that says *do not remove the tags*? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See Template:POV: "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." As my edit summary indicates, tags are not a badge of shame, and are intended to accompany discussion. Their purpose is to help draw in editors to a discussion in need of new input, not to mark the article as poor. You need to start discussion on the topics you want addressed and work with other editors to resolve them, not edit war.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you edit noble warrior instincts didn't allow you to bother waiting a few minutes for me to finish typing my write up on the talk page. Now you can restore the tags before this escalates. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll emphasize again... tags are intended to draw editors to a discussion in need of new input. A total lack of discussion is not in need of new input. How about you discuss the issue with the 4 editors who have reverted you, and if the discussion becomes stale, we can tag the article then.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're simply trolling. None of those editors have any interest in the content of the article—apparently including yourself—and one of them was a wikistalker. Discussion exists on the talk page, whether or not it has gained any responses yet. Restore the tags that you removed that refer to this discussion and stop behaving like a child. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would ask how you know the motivations of 4 other editors, but I don't want you continuing to badmouth others on my talk page, so please don't tell me. I think it's best you keep discussion of content on that article's talk page, not on mine. This is probably the 4th time I've asked you, but please cut out the accusations. Calling me a troll doesn't motivate me to continue working with you. Let's move discussion to the article talk page, please.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering not a single one of them has attempted to improve the article or discuss the status of it, I think mine is a pretty fair assessment. And, frankly, I have no desire to work with you — you've well worn out the limits of assuming good faith with your actions: At this point you've engaged in edit-warring at every turn while warning me about edit warring (!) and even stooped to the transparent level of removing warning tags while discussion has been ongoing on the talk page, ignoring WP:PROVEIT the entire time. If that's not childish trolling, what is? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Video Game Sales
Hey Jess, how come I can't write the video game sales of a couple of games I put down, the sales are literally labeled on the games box where everyone can see it, what's the point? Ophl1 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Ophl1. Thanks for the question! Basically, there's no problem at all quoting sales figures. The problem is using a source like a wordpress blog or an open wiki to back up those figures. Those aren't reliable sources. It doesn't matter if a thing is true, per se, to be said on wikipedia. It matters if a good source has said it. That's really our only job; representing the sources. Does that make some sense? We can totally include the figures you want to, we just need to find a good source for it first. Let me know if you have any other questions! Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

edits for Heartland's page
I'm looking for wording that makes the 3rd paragraph consistent with what follows later (and is already documented). It wasn't exactly contradictory, but reduced as it was, it was more inflammatory than useful and accurate. I took a shot at that, but since you don't like what I have, would you do your best to improve the wording along those lines? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericatius (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Ericatius. Thanks for coming to me to talk about this! Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and these kinds of discussions are how we get to the root of most disagreements. I'm not really the one you want to contact, though, since it's not my call alone. The best place to have this discussion is on the article talk page, which you can find by clicking on the blue "Discussion" link at the top left of the article. If you start a new section there, just like you did here, then other people working on that article can all participate together.
 * Briefly, I will say that my own objection to the content was based on one of our policies you can find here: WP:WEIGHT. Your additions changed the weight of the sentence pretty significantly, and I believe in opposition to how our current sources cover it. For me, personally, I'd need to see quality sources which discussed the topic in the way you're proposing to support a change to that kind of wording. Does that make sense? Hopefully I'll see you on the article talk page! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Alt-Right "white supremacy"
First of all, I am a member of the Alt-right. I know what it stands for, and it is NOT white supremacy, Anti-Semitism, or anything of the sort. There are many other followers i know personally who are minorities who are also ideological followers of the Alt-right. You claim "we only go by sources", yet your ONLY SOURCE IS Buzzfeed! Buzzfeed, a far left-leaning, progressive Social Justice Warrior outlet who despises anything conservative. Alt-right ideology is a rejection of the establishment, both Democrat & Republican. It is a rejection of globalization, mass forced multi-culturalism & immigration, and political correctness. It has nothing to do with the ideology that any race is racially superior. Buzzfeed has no valid sources to back up it's ludicrous accusations, which are biased & only attempt to demonize an ideology which doesn't conform to it's own.

I suggest you read this article from Milo Yiannopolous, who is a member of the Alt-Right, who explains what members believe and how we think. Stop telling ME how I think, and claiming "we only go by sources" and providing a source that is non-credible and attempts to demonize & lie about the Alt-Right's beliefs. Here is the article you should read before lying and perpetuating myths about an ideology you are 100% unfamiliar with: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a point to my title, I quote from the above article:

"Of course, just as was the case in history, the parents and grandparents just won’t understand, man. That’s down to the age difference. Millennials aren’t old enough to remember the Second World War or the horrors of the Holocaust. They are barely old enough to remember Rwanda or 9/11. Racism, for them, is a monster under the bed, a story told by their parents to frighten them into being good little children.

As with Father Christmas, Millennials have trouble believing it’s actually real. They’ve never actually seen it for themselves — and they don’t believe that the memes they post on /pol/ are actually racist. In fact, they know they’re not — they do it because it gets a reaction. Barely a month passes without a long feature in a new media outlet about the rampant sexism, racism or homophobia of online image boards. For regular posters at these boards, that’s mission accomplished.

Another, more palatable, interpretation of these memes is that they are clearly racist, but that there is very little sincerity behind them.

The funny thing is, being Millennials, they’re often quite diverse. Just visit a /pol/ thread, where posters’ nationalities are identified with small flags next to their posting IDs. You’ll see flags from the west, the Balkans, Turkey, the Middle East, South America, and even, sometimes, Africa. Everyone on the anonymous board hurls the most vicious slurs and stereotypes each other, but like jocks busting each other’s balls at the college bar, it’s obvious that there’s little real hatred present." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi 172.73. Can you post your source to the article talk page? There are several other editors working on this article. To be honest, I'm the least active there. I'll try to help out nonetheless. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, i can't do that seeing as how you got my IP BANNED from making contributions or edits. Can you add the article and also make the changes? You seem to be active enough on the page to where you can go and undo every change that I made on it. I tried to set the story straight, and you decided to shut me up & consistently reverted every edit I made. And now you want to claim that you are so busy you can't post a link to the talk page? I call BS. Here is the link, post it if you truly believe in promoting accuracy & helping to tell all sides of the story. And delete the "white supremacist, anti-jewish" crap. It's a lie. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And i know you didn't take the time to read the article. Because you don't care about telling the truth. You only care about promoting your own biased liberal agenda, without hearing out anyone from within the movement to get accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk • contribs)


 * Huh? You're not banned. If you were, you wouldn't be able to post to my talk page, like you're doing now. You can absolutely contribute to the talk page, here. That's the correct venue for discussing changes to the article. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And please stop with the invective. It's not appropriate.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, but you just got me banned from making changes to the article. And you know what the worst part is? You're a janitor on the internet. And YOU DO IT FOR FREE.

>on the internet >on Wikipedia >SHE does it for free >SHE takes her “job” very seriously >SHE does it because it is the only amount of power & control she will ever have in her pathetic life >SHE deletes edits she doesn’t like because whenever she gets upset she has an asthma attack >SHE deletes edits she doesn’t like because they interfere with the large backlog of little girl chinese cartoons she still has to watch >SHE will never have a real job >SHE will never move out of her parent’s house >SHE will never be at a healthy weight >SHE will never know how to cook anything besides a hot pocket >SHE will never have a boyfriend >SHE will never have any friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're going on about. I didn't get you banned from anything. I don't even have the ability to ban you. That's not how this works. I'm hatting this section. You need to go to the article talk page to discuss changes to the article. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

May 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

BabyJonas (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)