User talk:Mann jess/Archive 3

Atheism 3.0
The Atheism 3.0 article has been recreated by a new user, after it was deleted 3 days ago at AfD. I've asked the user to userfy the page until he gets it up to shape on his user page, and since you were the closing admin in the AfD, I figured I'd bring it to your attention as well. It seems silly to have this go to AfD again so soon, but I'm not sure of policy when it comes to this particular issue. Perhaps you would be able to userfy the original page for the user instead? Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems silly to have to spend hours defending a perfectly decent start to a new article because someone else did a poor job of writing it and a poor job of defending it. I don't think you have standing to insist on userification and I do not consent. If you don't have solid policy mandate I will take an imposed userification as a case of censorship. I know you probably think otherwise,,,somebody said forgive them they know not what they do...but that doesn't make it right. I feel harassed and have lost interest in helping out on any other topic but the topics that get hit with this kind of deletionist edit warring. So if the schemes to get me blocked, which I know you were not involved in, succeed, there is nothing lost because I am not interested in other topics at WP unless I get some apologies or clarifications. Whydont cha give me a day to look at the old one and to look at the deletion discussion and if it seems to be the case that maybe you are correct I will concur. But now it seems like a POV swarm and I don't like it. If you are not willing to back off for a day then template for a deletion discussion silly though that may seem to you.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the new version and though the wording of the text is different, it uses the same sources as the deleted one. The concerns regarding the deleted article were that the sources were not sufficient, and that they centred on one author. The new article does not address these concerns, so I will delete the article per WP:G4. As per the request below, I will userfy both versions to Devilishlyhandsome's userspace.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been beseiged with a torrent of POV warriors ever since I tried to help out at Militant atheism and became so worn out by the shenanigans of a self-described churchman who tried to manipulate me into making a remark that he could use to mount a (failed) block attempt on me. Look at my edit to that page though, nobody has a problem with them I worked very hard and IMHO contributed very positively. Much to the chagrin of my accuser, the page and that whole issue died down and the result is my good edits stand.


 * Worn out by all that, I picked up on the red linked to Atheism 3.0 and spent quite a few hours either building that page, or now debating with two guys who think that four people, themselves included, through what they describe as a "vote" constitute a binding perpetual consensus that Wikipedia can't have an article on that topic.


 * To keep the discussion fair, I requested a copy of the old article. This is necessary because they are swamping me with a torrent of spurious objections which appear to rely on irrelevant comparisons to the old page, which I can't access. And much of what they contend it flatly fallacious. For instance, there is the claim that Ph D's and Harvard published authors are not R.S.


 * I don't have all the time in the world. I requested a copy of the old one and the other fellow agreed so I thought we had some peace for the moment. But he seems to think that the minimalist earlier discussion means that a new writer, who works diligently to produce a much more suitable article, is somehow barred from a recreation.


 * There was not a re-creation ban. I don't know if they are religious believers on a POV crusade to blockade or if they are legalistic Wikilawyers but their notion that the page is somehow now off limits to new authors we new ideas is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the wiki ways. I find it difficult not to become quite disillusioned with the whole Wikipedia project AND religion. But for the next twenty four hours I hope that you will be willing to post me a copy and everyone will hold their fire in this interminable edit warring on this topic.


 * If there is a policy not a guideline which implies a recreation ban automatically on deletions, and I doubt there is one, they can force userfication. Otherwise I will insist on an ordinary deletion discussion.

This time I also recommend


 * Notification of all interested parties
 * Full discussion of the actual issues of this version after there has been time to bring it to say C class, probably three days max
 * AN understanding that it is not a vote
 * A statement of what policies if any this article in this version supposedly violate.


 * I am trying to assume good faith but many of the claims that are being made are so outragous I am beginning to wonder.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The new article is based on the same sources as the deleted article, and it was the sources that were the reason for deletion. As the new article is essentially a recreation of the deleted article our policy per WP:G4 is that it is deleted without a need for a new discussion. As you have requested I userfy the old version, I will also userfy the new version in your userspace so you can work on it. I will be quite happy to look at the article on request as you develop it and advise you when it is ready to be moved back into mainspace.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you SilkTork. I appreciate you looking into it. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and religion
Hey, just wanted to drop by and let you know that you technically broke 3RR on the Atheism and religion article. I'm not disagreeing with the substance of the reverts or anything, but just wanted to let you know all the same (3RR being a bright-line rule and all). It's just something I noticed that you may not have been paying attention to. - SudoGhost 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm... The policy must have been changed since I last read it. 3RR now very explicitly applies to reverting different content. Usually, I restrain myself to 1 revert for a given change, except in exceptional cases where 2 reverts seem likely to solve the dispute. It seems odd to me that my last revert (the first one of entirely new material) would put me over the line, especially given the clear disruptive violation of WP:POINT. I'll have to look into it further and see how 3rr is now being applied in these cases. Thanks for the notice! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. It appears (per discussion on the policy talk page) that consensus dictates it is okay to revert distinct content in distinct disputes more than 3 times on a given page when the effect is not combative edit warring, justified per IAR. I'm really uncomfortable with that, particularly since 3rr is specified so clearly as a "bright line rule", but I guess that's how it is... Anyway, moving on...  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Mann jess. Forgive me for joining an old discussion on your talk page, which I just happened to see. Your conclusion I think is the opposite to what happened on the policy talk page. *Any* four reverts still break the rule, at least the way I read the policy. That proposed exemption was to broaden the window to allow four reverts under some conditions. The proposed change did not get consensus. WP:EW still says: ..an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. .Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, the policy page still says that; Going by the policy page wording, it's a hard line at 4 reverts, regardless of content or effect. However, the discussion I linked above seems to have arrived at a consensus that some cases of 4 reverts are okay, (even if the policy page doesn't say so), which editors justified by IAR. I'm not comfortable violating policy based on IAR. (And based on this wording, I'm not sure how else to handle multiple additions of obviously inappropriate content by multiple editors on high traffic pages) I'd take it up on the EW talk page, but I wouldn't have time ATM to follow up with it. Alas. I appreciate the clarification. Were I to be wrong about community consensus, I would obviously want to know, but that's my reading.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Buddha Nature
Hello. You deleted some recent work on the Buddha nature article. Perhaps you would explain why you did this as your edit summary does not make this clear. Best wishes 81.107.150.246 (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as I specified in my edit summary, your initial edit removed sourced material without specifying a reason. Also, your new content which you've restored adds a good deal of new material which is unsourced. Further, please read WP:VAND, as "vandalism" has a distinct meaning, and misusing it is frowned upon. Please also use the talk page to discuss your proposal, instead of edit warring. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you took the time and care to read articles before editing them it would save us all time and energy. Your edits to the Theism article demonstrate that you have not read the discussion page which clearly enunciates what is wrong with the current article. Regarding the Buddha nature article you claim I have removed sourced material. You have not bothered to check whether what you say is true or not. You simply take it from the information listed next to the edit summary and make your pronouncement. You are unaware that the text removed (which contained a reference to Jeffrey Hopkins) had previously been duplicated from the introduction. The sourced material and reference you claimed I removed is in fact in the introduction. All the material is there intact with the reference. So it is not that I am edit warring, it is rather that you are not being very diligent or assiduous in your editing and thereby wasting other people's time. Please do not continue to remove templates from the theism article. If you continue to do so I will report your behaviour to an administrator. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked the discussion page? I posted on the discussion page on the first revert, and explicitly asked you to respond there. You have yet to do so. Stop edit warring, and discuss your changes on the talk page.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Simplifying the section headers in reports you file at AN3
Hello Mann jess. Since I often use section header when documenting closures of 3RR cases, it would be helpful if you could avoid putting your full signature there, with all the formatting. For example, WP:AN3 is a line that I may enter into the block log as part of the block reason. (I changed the header you originally created). Formatting in the block log will go nowhere, so it would save me having to reformat the header if you would just sign yourself in the header as User:Mann jess and not something more complex. Your full signature involves Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts;  This would not successfully transfer to the block log which is a plain text environment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, I used to do that on my own just to make things more clear, but eventually I just got lazy and stuck with the 3rr helper tool's default header. I wasn't aware there was any actual reason I should cut it down, but if there is I'll start doing it again. Thanks for letting me know! No reason to impede others if I don't have to :P  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

metaphysical naturalism action
Please better explain your action in metaphysical naturalism article on the talk page. I'm confused. Mthoodhood (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Level of support for evolution
I'd like to kindly ask you to perform a partial revert back of your own removal of template "citation needed" due to your reasoning being obviously not applicable on that edit of mine.(See Add.1 at article talk page). Thanks in advance for your vicinity. --Stephfo (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You still don't apparently understand the concept of edit warring. I'm not sure how to explain it better. In any case, I've responded to your queries on the talk page. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
My bad. Put back what I removed. --66.151.103.9 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Your edit summary indicated to me that you intended to remove it, thus the talk page message. Thanks for keeping it in this time! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Message
08:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Message
22:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Grammar corrections
Thank you so (so) much for the corrections, they were very helpful and I'll try to keep them in mind. :) Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  08:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Message
08:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Social Conservatism page
Dear Editor!

I have read today the following Wikipedia pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI%C3%89P

As you can see according to these pages, Jobbik and MIÉP does not have a Social conservatism ideology. On the other hand KDNP is a party with Social conservatism ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDNP

So I do not realy understand correcting such an obvious mistake on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism#Hungary is why a problem.

Thank you for attention Bagoly12


 * Hi Bagoly. I'm not familiar with any of the three parties, so I can't comment as to whether one is appropriate over the other. However, briefly skimming the three pages, I see both Jobbik and MIEP listed as right-wing political parties in Hungary, so it doesn't seem a stretch for me to imagine they are socially conservative. Indeed, I see some other indicators too. I'm willing to accept they may not be, but we really need sources for all three entries clearly indicating they're socially conservative. I'd be happy to discuss this more if you'd like, but this area isn't really of much interest to me, to be honest.


 * That all said, the reason I reverted is because you didn't provide an edit summary indicating a reason to remove the entries, and (as far as I could tell with a brief glance), the entries you removed seemed to belong there. In the future, please make sure to provide clear edit summaries when making edits like this, particularly when removing content. Let me know if you have any other questions. Feel free to add the KDNP back to the section if it's presented in reliable sources to be a socially conservative party (I wouldn't know either way). Also, let me know if you want to talk about this more on the article talk page. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, I added sources for the two removed entries. I'd be happy to discuss things further on the article talk page if you'd like. All the best!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lisa Irwin


The article Lisa Irwin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Very sad local event; however, the individual is only known for the single event.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dog six (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: []. Thank you!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Zenkai now @ ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. You took it there just moments after I posted my request for a self-imposed topic-ban. I've already commented on his page and the ANI thread. Thanks for the notice.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Very Funny
I see that you have followed me and undid one of my edits at "concerto". My edit was correct, and I am an expert on classical music. Also, It's "saxophone", not "saxaphone". Zenkai251 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't take it personally. I checked your other contribs following the ANI case, and only reverted two edits which removed content which seemed to apply, and changed capitalization incorrectly. You seem to agree on the capitalization change, and per your concerns I've moved Jon Lord down to the "multiple instruments" section. I'm not convinced this is ideal, but it seems suitable enough for now. Wikipedia is collaborative, and is intended to work this way. I'd welcome further discussion on that talk page if you'd like to. My recommendation to edit other areas of interest stands (in this case, it would seem "classical music" fits the bill). I don't want to discourage you from continuing to edit there, but I may pop in from time to time to make changes of my own, or discuss. You're correct on the spelling, of course. I do make typos now and then. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam article talk page
In this edit I moved your comment. I posted a reply and I moved your comment for clarity. I didn't otherwise edit your comments, I just moved them. Cheers.--Adam in MO Talk 07:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, I noticed that. I was almost going to revert the move (I prefer comments in chronological order), but decided against it. Not that big a deal, so no sense getting worked up about it :P Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Noah's Ark
Thanks, I agree and have removed the fact tag. If the other editor re-inserts, we'll have to discuss with him. --Macrakis (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! AnnaMaria Cardinalli Bio
Hello Jess,

Thanks for your direction and guidance on the article. I will be happy to comply with your suggestions and make everything "right." I will get on that immediately tomorrow. However, Reddogsix has already recommended my page for deletion and a discussion is currently underway. Might you add your voice to the debate if you believe, as you have indicated, that the article can be "saved?"

I truly appreciate your help and perspective on this!

"Curious" George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegreenrow (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at it now. Thanks for the notice. We'll see what we can do :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I cleaned the article up substantially, and added a keep vote to the delete discussion with my rationale. I think the article should be safe from deletion, but it still needs a good amount of work. If you can track down any more references that meet WP:RS (think, sources that cover AnnaMaria extensively in major news outlets), that would be helpful. (Notice how I've trimmed out a good deal of the refs and content in the article previously, because it didn't meet our standards for reliable sources). If you have any questions, or need any help, feel free to drop me a line. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess (talk • contribs)

A Barnstar for you! and Bar

 * Jess, I was about to do the same with an Article Rescue Barnstar ... but I see George has got there first. All the same, congratulations. I have really enjoyed seeing such good work done, and reading the article and its sources in the newspapers. Thanks, and well done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chiswick Chap! It's encouraging to know the efforts were appreciated :) Your changes to the article have been great as well! Looking forward to working with you both some more.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing AfD
In the discussion on the talk page of Wilhelm Busch (clergyman), Amantulic says that you can close the AfD yourself as you started it and withdrew your nomination. Please contact him when you do, as he is waiting to rename the article. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, I was planning to do that tonight. I just need to figure out the proper procedure for closing, and I'll take care of it. Thanks for the notice :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just about to do it, but it looks like StAnselm took care of it. Contacting Amantulic now, but we should be good to go.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Word "established"
In the Charles Darwin article in the second sentance the second word is "established". In a previous version the word "showed" was used. This change was made by you on 14 June 2010‎ at 16:36 and allegedly is based on long discussions up to that time. This is not correct! I have read the relevant discussions and the change from "showed" to "established" is actually in the context of Darwin's establishment of the theory not his alleged establishment of the science of evolution! This is a vital difference. This sentance reads much more strongly than any reference or discussion supports! Please see the the fourth sentance of the fourth paragraph for the correct context of the use of this word. In that sentance it is clear that Darwin only "established" an explanation not the conclusion. This sentance is referenced appropriately. If you can show the error in this section please give direct reference to any missing discussion. Please do not include YOUR opinions on the value of the use of the word "established". This reverted change is NOT based on the ideas of the content but on the wording agreed upon in discussion. I hope this clears things up as this single word "established" has been defended incorrectly many times. A simple search of this word in edits and discussions proves the truth of what I am saying. Please explain where I am wrong if you can. This is not an edit war as I believe your edit was in error. Wcwarren (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Wcwarren. We should keep discussion of the article on the article's talk page. However, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the previous discussion, the article is currently in a state which has been supported by consensus for some time. Therefore, any new change to the article would have to meet consensus to be enacted. Thus far, you've received some opposition to your proposal. That's okay, it may mean you can present new sources alongside a convincing argument, and change the opinion of other editors on the page. However, arguing that we should simply accept your proposal without new sources or consensus is probably not productive. There's no need to discuss this at length here... how about we go to the article talk page instead? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jess. Thanks for your polite and productive response to my suggestions. I would value your contributions to the article talk page. Wcwarren (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo
Thanks for the heads up on the ANI. I didn't participate in any of the other blocks, but this has gone on too far and cost a lot of time. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I saw you had participated a lot already, so it seemed appropriate to include you. I appreciate your comments at ANI; there's a lot you mentioned, particularly about the Steffo user account, I wasn't aware of. Your comments actually swayed me from being "not supportive" of a topic ban to very much opposed to one, but I'm allowing other editors to comment before I dive into that. Anyway, thanks again. It's always been a pleasure working with you whenever we've been in the same area. See you around!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's been a pleasure working with you, too! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback @ WLU
Only 'cause it's been a while since the original message. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

New Section
You completely removed my insertions about Kundalini yoga under "receptions in the west", citing that I didn't provide reliable resource. I suggest you look at the resource that I IN FACT did provide as I am about to copy and paste what I had originally posted and you had deliberately deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.32.1 (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean. You didn't say what article or when this edit happened, and checking your contrib history, I don't see anywhere our edits have really overlapped. I did recently revert a user named Moeller at Central College here, but my edit summary indicated it was because of weasel words. I also left a welcome message and comment on his talk page here, encouraging him to reintroduce the content without the problematic language. Is that what you mean?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WQA
You've been mentioned at WP:WQA. Gerardw (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've commented there, and I hope my posting the notice -- easier than nagging the OP into doing so -- did not imply any endorsement of the request in the first place. I've unarchived the post, primarily in order to allow them to feel free to comment, but that is not to imply you should spend any more time on the issue. Gerardw (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Caprice Bourret
Regarding Bourret's article and the use of "supermodel," I do understand where you're coming from (long ago, this topic was debated frequently), but you have to understand that throughout all of Wikipedia's articles on fashion models the standard is to define them as models, since that's what their profession is. If you want to change this system, the burden is on you to justify it, and you don't have the consensus. Several very experienced editors dispute your edits, while the editors in this article who have previously made the same edits as you are all SPAs (single purpose accounts) and likely sockpuppets of one COI editor. You can cite all the sources you want, but verifiability does not justify defining someone through debatable terminology. That said, I'm not entirely opposed to using "supermodel" in the lead. The point is to use it in the appropriate, encyclopedic context. A simple example is Lisa Fonssagrives.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 03:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was not aware there was precedent to avoid the term. I'm actually not versed in that article's history, so I wasn't basing the edits off any of the SPAs you mention, but just that one editor (Damiens) was removing content with the justification it wasn't sourced (which it is). I checked and didn't see any discussion on talk, so assumed it was a new issue. If there is consensus on fashion models generally to use different terminology, then by all means do so. I would have to see the discussion, but it seems I would likely disagree with that decision, but frankly I'm not really interested enough to care too terribly much. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and feel free to revert me. If you have a link handy, could you point me to where a discussion on this issue took place? My curiosity may get the better of me. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the fashion WikiProject has the earliest debate (2008?) over this buried somewhere in its archives. If I remember correctly, most people agreed "supermodel" is POV/subjective and shouldn't be used at all in the lead while one or two people supported using it as acceptable terminology if there was a source.  Since then, it's all been debates in individual talk pages with a more firm consensus toward not using "supermodel," although I can imagine the original pro-"supermodel" voters changed their tune largely to stop getting associated with the anonymous fanboy/fangirl IP just trying to flatter their favorite model.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 14:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why?
I see you have returned to your old ways of reverting my edits even when I'm clearly correct. I'd appreciate it if you would stop. Thanks. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I explained in my edit summary, the source is quite clear and reflects the current wording perfectly. Did you read it? Here's a quote: "In order to develop their beliefs, the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God."  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, it was less than a month ago that you said you'd take a break from editing Christianity articles, and thereby avoided a formal topic ban (with my help, mind you). Delving back into the topic area now may not be a great idea. I see you mostly stopped editing music articles. Is there a reason for that?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And how does the source know this? Were they there when Genesis was written. Does Genesis say that it borrowed ideas from the Mesopotamians? Zenkai251 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I know I said that, but I had to attemp to fix that glaring error. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the content dispute on the article talk page. Fixing errors here and there are fine... but, part of the problem last month was tendentious editing associated with these topics. Accusatory messages like this one simply because your proposal was reverted look a lot like some of those old habits. I shouldn't have to remind you that I vouched for you, and that was a major reason you were not placed under formal sanctions. With that in mind, accusing me of "returning to my old ways" seems a little out of line. Is there a reason you stopped editing music articles? I was hoping you'd spend some time in that area, and enjoy contributing without the tense atmosphere of religion-related topics.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I accused you because my edit was completely correct and you had no good reason to revert it. You seem like a reasonable person, why can't you just accept that one of my edits might actually be good? Oh, I haven't edited music articles in a while because I haven't noticed any glaring errors. I'm sorry if I come off a little strong. Zenkai251 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, a big part of editing controversial topics is being reverted. It happens, quite a lot, so it's something we all have to get used to. Luckily, there is a standard way of handling yourself when it happens, which is outlined in WP:DR. A big part of successful dispute resolution is assuming good faith, and collaboratively opening civil discussion on the talk page. Assuming from the outset that "I had no good reason to revert" isn't likely to be helpful for either of us, and posting messages like that on another editor's talk page usually poisons the well, making collaboration more difficult.


 * You are not under formal sanctions, so you are technically free to continue editing this and other Christianity articles. However, I honestly don't believe it's a good idea quite yet. We have a lot of sometimes tricky policies, and unintuitive ways of operating, which take most editors a long time to become acclimated with. That is especially hard when editing in a controversial area, where temperaments often run hot, and especially so when it's a topic area you already feel strongly about.


 * The reason I've so strongly suggested editing another area for a little while is that it would give you the opportunity to acclimate yourself with our policies without the added frustration that religion brings to the table. There are lots of music articles in need of attention, including Classical period (music), Western music (North America), and many articles in Category:Musical genres by region. If it interests you, perhaps you could work on expanding one of those articles by adding references and new content. Many editors see improving an article to a "good article" to be a major accomplishment. There's also lots of copyediting to do, if that sounds appealing. If you want other ideas, I'd be happy to come up with them as well. I can work with you on Genesis creation narrative if you prefer, but because of your attachment to the subject area, and the controversial nature of the topic, it will be a difficult and often frustrating experience, and it may not yield the results you want. Why not try one of those other areas, and then come back to Genesis later on?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jess, I'll look into some of those articles. But in the meantime, I would like Genesis creation narrative's intro to be a bit more neutral. Thanks again. Zenkai251 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo redux
See follow up Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828 --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jess
Hi, Jess. I'm really new to edit Wikipedia. Where do I start ? How can I be adopted ? Not sure how can I read your response, so please inform me.

Thanks. Luciano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucianosilvajp (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lucian. Welcome to wikipedia! I'm glad you're here! I'll be able to post some more resources for you once I get home, but a good place to start for now might be WP:FIVE and WP:ADOPT  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lisa Irwin


A tag has been placed on Lisa Irwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 10:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Buddha-nature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

talk
I suggest that you compare my final edit with the page on Historical Jesus before I added anything. I added valuable tables of data and many references. I will leave it entirely in your hands if you want to delete any specific sentences. My edits on the Historical Jesus page are now complete except for maybe some references at a later date. Good luck with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Spread. Thanks for the insight. I've responded on your talk page.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

talk page
I have left a comment on the Historical Jesus page, which you might like to discuss with other people. I could not face adding all the information again and I think it will benefit more from discussion and editing by someone other than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi John. Thank you. Despite our disagreement on one or two issues, you've remained collaborative and civil the entire exchange, which has been a pleasant surprise relative to my experiences on other contentious articles. Thanks for the input working on the article. My time is pretty strained ATM, but I look forward to working with you in the future. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On our recent "talk"
Mann jess, I do appreciate your using kind words, experience and your arbitration attempts but I honestly speaking do not feel like that your intervention (which seems to have decided the issue) lead to a fair and balanced outcome in the  recent discussion. The reason being that I feel that the bar is set way above what is normally tolerated on Wikipedia for the traditionalist POV that I happen to represent. I understand what you mean with your 5-point critique, but I challenge you to think about the following: The text in my last edit was as far as possible pure copy-paste from the respective main articles. All the sources were purely taken from those pages, except the one you complemented on, that one I found. Nevertheless, even that was rejected ad-hominem as it was "anti-whatever" (though not by you). What I find hardest to comprehend is how a 100 % non-sourced synthesis (that makes a lot of generalizations but does however, represent both POVs) got through while not a single word I proposed did... Maybe this has something to do with how my ethos is perceived; or you may alternatively hold the view that I just don't get how to do a summary section... well, maybe. I don't know. What I do know is that I can write academically enough to defend at least a Master's thesis against peer and professor review. But I am starting to understand why some groups create their own XXXpedias and why there is a claim that Wikipedia has a pro-liberal bias. Compare e.g. these two wikisources | 1 2 on the topic to one another and let me know what you think about Wikipedia and NPOV on the topic. Encountering multiple blanket rejections such as "absolute nonsense" or "unacceptable, to put it mildly" (not your words) for text of the type mentioned above instead of constructive critique and concrete wording proposals as "improvement suggestions", while at the same time someone representing my "opponent" gets published with 0 sources and 0 a-priori discussion really makes me think twice weather I want to put time and effort into Wikipedia editing at all. Now I'm not saying this in order to "sneak in my view through the back door" or to try to "win you over", this is more just venting out some perplexing thoughts that I have on the discussion. What also seems strange is that I tagged the other summary section in the article we were discussing as not reflecting main article content a week ago but nothing has happened to it. It cannot be because nobody cares about the page as my edits got reverted in minutes. Maybe I just have the "wrong" view on things... Tikru8 (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tirku. First of all, thank you for being willing to engage collaboratively on this issue. To my understanding, your primary objection is that you feel higher standards have been set for your content in Christianity and homosexuality than on other articles (such as The Bible and homosexuality). I understand how that could be frustrating. However, it's not that higher standards have been set for you, but that our ordinarily high standards have not been met everywhere else. Ultimately, experienced editors only have so much time to devote to wikipedia, and our efforts tend to be focused on only a handful of articles. Consequently, bad content gets written in lots of lower traffic articles, and that bad content may even persist for quite a while. We may only realize that bad content is present when it begins leaching over into articles we do watch, such as in this case.


 * We have a lot of poorly written content which doesn't meet our standards all over, and it's going to take a long time to clean it all up. That's what makes it all the more important to ensure that new content we add meets our standards and doesn't share those problems. To give a specific example... I appreciate that The bible and homosexuality may use synthesis of sources to establish the majority view, but WP:SYN is a core and nearly immutable policy; the correct course of action is to fix the synthesis in The bible and homosexuality, not to carry that synthesis over into new articles.


 * I only have so much time, so I can't fundamentally rewrite every article with a problem. What I can do is work collaboratively with you to ensure that new content (in this case, our summary in Christianity and homosexuality) is well written and properly sourced. I'm hoping to find more time in the future to search for good sources myself, but in the meantime I'm doing the best with what I have.


 * From our interactions thus far, it seems like you'll be a really great wikipedia editor. I'm glad you decided to join and work on the project. The dynamic here can be tough sometimes, and it takes some getting used to, but that's only natural with any project like this. I hope you don't feel too frustrated by what's happened on the talk page so far. There seems to be only one big step left, which is to find strong reliable sources which present an overview of the topic, and then use those to summarize and attribute using the content we have. A quick search on google scholar might turn up something, for instance. Or, if you're aware of other literature, that might work too. Let me know if you have any questions, etc. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Wow Mann_jess, you really are a smooth talker ;) Ever thought about getting into politics or arbitrating the eternal Palestinian dispute? And yes, you understood my main objection correctly and your explanation seems logical. What you however, can't explain (and seemingly won't admit) is the built-in bias at Wikipedia which IMO is crystallized in the other summary section in the article. Despite the obvious deviation from Wikipedia standards and that veteran editors watch the page, nobody seems to care to change this. The only explanation I can think of is that it is of the "politically correct view" => Evidence of double standards, one lax one for the ones who share the "right" opinion, one very strict one for the ones that are "wrong". Now since I'm tired of playing Don Quijote, is there a forum on Wikipedia where you can ask for someone with more expertize to come and have a look and re-writing it? Tikru8 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow Mann_jess, you really are a smooth talker ;) Ever thought about getting into politics or arbitrating the eternal Palestinian dispute? And yes, you understood my main objection correctly and your explanation seems logical. What you however, can't explain (and seemingly won't admit) is the built-in bias at Wikipedia which IMO is crystallized in the other summary section in the article. Despite the obvious deviation from Wikipedia standards and that veteran editors watch the page, nobody seems to care to change this. The only explanation I can think of is that it is of the "politically correct view" => Evidence of double standards, one lax one for the ones who share the "right" opinion, one very strict one for the ones that are "wrong". Now since I'm tired of playing Don Quijote, is there a forum on Wikipedia where you can ask for someone with more expertize to come and have a look and re-writing it? Tikru8 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
FYI, please see: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page formatting


Walter Görlitz has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 3 is the formatting guideline that explains why blank lines are not usually added to the comments, although it's really a preference.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I do think that we're saying the same thing on the talk page. You're stating the positive side of the argument while I'm stating the negative side. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I replied to you on the talk page before seeing this. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, and I've just misread your replies. I don't think the heated nature of the discussion is likely to result in anything productive. I can't imagine that we disagree the article can't be changed without new sources, so we may as well wait for those to come in before continuing. Anyway, speak to you again soon. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

homeopathy
so you're reverting on the strength of a source that you haven't checked and that i'm telling you is incorrect. i even have a quote. you're just making things up here. Spiculalinguae (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Spiculalinguae. I didn't say I hadn't read the source. I also made a suggestion for new wording. The problem is, you've removed a sourced statement which adds context to the rest of the paragraph. If we have new sources which indicate our wording may be incomplete or inaccurate, we can reflect a change to the article, but we should maintain that same context with the new wording. I appreciate your contribution to the article. I'd ask that you read through WP:AGF and WP:BRD, and then open a discussion on the article talk page to present sources you believe we should incorporate. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

copyvio
Exactly what is the copyvio on Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala? Is the article taken from the book you listed, and how did you tell. The link does not seem to work for me. What part exactly is copied?  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell. I don't have access to the full source, but a substantial portion of the article was copied from the book. It appears it was copied over in this edit. I took a random snippet of the article and searched on google. See this google search: "an assertive absolute monarch jealous of the powers he had delegated to Koirala's government" site:books.google.com, where it appears as a snippet of the book. Most of the rest of the article is written in the same polemical style and was copied over in the same edit. I posted this on the talk page as well. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can speedy delete an article on a famous person based on a single phrase from a google books snippet. It might well be copyvio, but someone would have to check the proposed source.  I think what I will  to do is re-read it tomorrow for consistent tone, and if it does sound as consistent to me as it does to you, I will replace it with an English version from the combination of the Italian and Norwegian articles, the most substantial of the ones I can read--the Nepali one is impossible for both me and Google translate. (I'll also rewrite on the basis of some of the parts in the present English one where it fills the gaps, ) My willingness to do something like that depends on the importance of the article.    DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG. Thanks for looking into it. I think your plan to replace the article is a good one. I had planned to similarly replace it after the speedy took place. I'm sure the subject is notable, we just obviously can't have a blatant copyvio in mainspace. Let me know what you think when you look it over in more detail later. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:WLU and his misrepresentation of my position
His talk page would be of little use -- I have dealt with him before.

He has repeatedly misstated my position and there are others who may have assumed the misrepresentation. I understand the acupuncture talk page may not be the best place to do this but I don't know where else and frankly the acupuncture talk page can not get any worse. --Mindjuicer (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the talk page can get worse, and having a personal argument with another user, requesting an apology, is a good way to get there. Discussion on the talk page needs to get better, not worse. You have a couple options if you feel WLU has not been accessible on his talk page. WP:WQA, WP:RFCU, WP:ANI, WP:DR are all places to escalate problems with a user (the last being dispute specific). However, I'll advise you now that if you go there and admit that you haven't tried engaging him on his talk page first, that's not going to reflect well. We're all here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and it's best not to have a battlefield mentality. Please assume good faith, and try to engage him civilly first.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah thank you. It's RFC/U btw.
 * I'm inclined to believe almost everyone on these fringe/protoscience pages is POV-pushing. Why would they put up with this nonsense otherwise?  FWIW, I'm there to stand up to people like WLU after they bullied me on EFT's talk page. --Mindjuicer (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mindjuicer, I want to get my facts straight, so I'll ask you. Have you referred to yourself as a "neutral" editor, or is it "only" Dickmojo who has done that? (One or both of you have done it, and done it in a way to make it appear that "others" are pushing a POV, but that you (you and/or Dickmojo) are innocent.) Here's an example of this tactic. Do you admit that you too are POV pushing and are not innocent in this matter? I'm interested in knowing your degree of self-understanding. I admit that I do have a POV which is apparent at times in discussions, and in that sense I'm not neutral on talk pages. OTOH, neutrality is required for article edits, but not personal POV. We all have personal POV and that's okay. I'd just like to see the throwing of stones from inside glass houses stopped. Can we agree on that? This whole mess needs to deescalate. Dickmojo has been blocked and you need to be careful you aren't seen as acting as a meatpuppet and enabler of his POV and behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In spite of the difficulty, I have high expectations of being neutral. If I  have not been so, I would like to see some evidence of that claim.
 * DickMojo clearly has a POV but WLU, Noformation and FamousDog are pushing theirs. DickMojo is merely being a PITA on the talk page now and who isn't... (well Jess isn't ;).
 * I do not care if I act like a meatpuppet whatever that is. The DRN on DickMojo was weird - the timing seemed to be completely unrelated to anything DickMojo had done.  I also confused FamousDog for one of the bullies on the EFT article and apologised publicly to him for that.
 * You will notice that I didn't argue for removal of his ban.
 * The way DickMojo is treated, I'm surprised you expect him to behave differently. For the length of time this has apparently been going on, a quick mediation would probably have resolved it with little fuss.
 * For the record, I am a highly regarded English psychotherapist. I have an interest in energy medicine and think that acupuncture uses it ineffectively.  I also don't like needles so am not really a fan of acupuncture and have never referred anyone to it (in spite of availability on the NHS). When I say I'm here to stand up to bullies and anti altmed zealots, I mean it. --Mindjuicer (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROWN
In what way were both reversions necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindjuicer (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Both changes were enacted without having established consensus, and against the considered opinions of other editors on the talk page. You indicated in your first edit summary you were making changes per WP:SILENCE. Considering I and other editors had only stopped responding after repeatedly pointing out WP:IDHT and referencing WP:SHUN (in addition to lodging objections first), WP:SILENCE doesn't apply. To be clear, both edits misrepresent the weight of sources. MJ, I'm willing to work with you on this, and happy to improve the article to reflect the best available sources on the topic, but the way you're going about editing is not helpful. If you have further questions about the proposal and revert, feel free to bring it up on Talk:Acupuncture. Furnishing sources that explicitly state what you'd like to change would be helpful. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm actually following guidelines:WP:BOLD whereas you haven't yet explained why reverting was necessary.
 * Looking at the talk page, I may have been premature in claiming WP:SILENCE on Lee et al 2009 but you seem to have refused to debate it. In  WLU agreed it was reliable and substantiated such a claim.
 * As for sources, I quoted Lee et al 2009. You reverted it.
 * You know about the meta-analysis which is suggestive of a physical basis for acupuncture points. My change was pretty damn slight. I really don't see why you have a problem with it.
 * The weight of criticism has barely improved from 70%. Reliable secondary sources which seek to make a fair overview ie WHO, NHS etc give criticism around 40% weight. --Mindjuicer (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I absolutely did explain why reverting was necessary: Improper weight and lack of consensus. You instituted two changes despite objections on the talk page. That's rarely constructive. WLU agreed the source was reliable, but disagreed repeatedly with your suggestion we should therefore change that segment to be stronger. Implying that you had his support for your edit is disingenuous. You're still quoting this 70/30 statistic, despite multiple editors pointing out (multiple times) that it's both incorrect and irrelevant.


 * You see, this is the problem... I'm just repeating myself over and over; this whole reply is just referring you back to what other editors have already said. That's a problem. I don't have an issue working constructively with you: I'm happy to read and discuss sources; I'm happy to include better research in the article; I'm happy to see the article entirely rewritten if it results in more comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage. What I'm not happy doing is rehashing the same arguments over and over, when all you're doing is repeating yourself and yelling about bias.


 * I've worked extensively with a lot of editors with whom I disagree, and I'm proud to say a few of them are now better acclimated with policy and working more collaboratively due to my involvement. I still disagree with them, but I'm happy they're here. I assure you, I'm not trying to drive you away or stonewall your contributions. You're editing combatively, failing to heed independent input, repeating the same arguments, and fighting against (not working towards) consensus. These problems need to be resolved if you hope to make any constructive changes to the topic.


 * A good rule of thumb when you're having trouble is to find a source which says exactly what you want included, and then present sources ahead of (not behind) your changes; find the sources first, and talk with them exclusively. When consensus forms against your proposal, seek independent input, or move on and come back later.


 * If you want to discuss the article, this isn't the appropriate place or method. You need to read up on policy, and indicate at the article talk page and at ANI that you understand your editing has been problematic, and then work to edit collaboratively with others. I'm sorry, but this is the best and only advice I can give. If you have questions, please indicate (through actions) that you've read and understood what I've said first. For discussion of article content, let's keep it on Talk:Acupuncture. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mindjuicer, you were BOLD. Nothing (normally) wrong with that. Mann jess reverted and left an edit summary. So far so good. Mann jess has essentially turned the situation into a BRD cycle, and now you (MJ) need to proceed to the next step - "discuss" it on the talk page, and don't attempt to repeat your edit until a consensus has been reached. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like reverting for the same reasons stated on WP:ROWN and I don't like Do as I say, not as I do. And I'm not particularly keen on the lecture when I'm not the one in the wrong here.


 * I'm inclined to address some of the specific accusations tomorrow as maybe I'll be less likely to get insta-reverted in future, but WP:FAITH should be enough. --Mindjuicer (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiLove Message
Hello User:Mann jess, I thought you might appreciate this. Thanks for your contributions at Wikipedia. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 

Anupam has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Hi Anupam. Thank you. The appreciation is encouraging. Hope you're doing well. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, have a great day! With regards, AnupamTalk 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?
An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here.  This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert
What is the purpose for your reverting the PHP I applied to the article on polymorphism?


 * Hi there. As I specified in the edit summary, we typically don't want an example in every single language. Many of our programming articles suffer from this issue, where every editor to the page wants to add his own example from his preferred language, and the article becomes overrun with identical examples in as many as 25 languages (yes, really). To avoid that, one or two examples are usually adequate. Ideally, we want examples which are accessible to everyone from any background. IIRC, the article already had a Python example which meets that description, and the PHP example was nearly identical, so it wasn't necessary. I'd be happy to discuss this with you further on the article talk page. Just start a section there and I'll drop in. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)