User talk:Mann jess/Archive 4

Genesis creation narrative
Since PiCo has bowed out for the time being, I was wondering if you (if you are knowledgeable in the subject) would be interested in collaborating with me on the rewrite/very extensive copyedit/expansion of the article once this latest brouhaha about the RfM has died down? I was intending to collaborate with PiCo, but I ask you as 1) You are one of the very few editors (maybe the only one) of different opinion that has maintained poise and civility throughout the proceedings and have not stooped to the level of illogic, etc., and, indeed, in all of the discussions involving you on the talk-page before, and 2) because you are of different opinion, so I do not fall in to WP:MPOV, WP:OWNERSHIP, or unconscious bias, as I believe that having two editors of opposing viewpoints see the article as it is being revised will greatly increase its quality and balance and eliminate the chance of any of the negatives that come with one author doing the revision and new composition (I express myself poorly, but I believe you shall understand what I mean in any case: essentially "two [disagreeing] heads are better than one [on contentious issues]"). If you do not wish to take such an active role, I would ask if you would be willing to act as editor in the traditional sense of the term. Thank you for your time here, and your levelheadedness and civility in general. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi John. I appreciate the invite! :) I'd love to collaborate with you on this, but I've found recently that my time is fairly limited. I work at the computer, so I'm able to pop in quite often for brief comments, but longer periods of research and rewriting have been hard to scrounge up recently. (I recently moved into a new place, have new clients, and a lot is going on generally!) If it turns out that I have the time when you begin, then I'd love to be involved. But, if you're looking to have a collaborator who's definitely available throughout the whole process, you might not want to count on me, unfortunately. If nothing else, I can definitely provide input, and maybe some corrections/source suggestions/typo fixes/etc. For the record, I appreciate your level-headedness in the discussion as well! :) Either way, I'd definitely wait until the dust is really settled before you begin, otherwise, it'll make the process a lot harder!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's being rewritten and expanded offline (remember, in emacs, because I hate vi), so I don't disrupt the actual article, and can make it "B-class" before it goes live: if I just start in on Wikispace, the article will get much worse (not to mention confusing and disorganized, as I jump much between one section and another) before it gets better. I think I can start a sub-userpage-userspace-page to host parts of it on, and I will send you a link whenever a new part is up, to which you can mark up, revise, reword, and comment at your leisure. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
My comments were not a discussion.

They were related to the article and were a reply to the topic.

Someone was questioning whether "agnostic atheism" was an oxymoron and I gave an explanation.--108.49.116.97 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi 108.49, welcome to wikipedia. I appreciate you trying to help out and respond to questions on the talk page. However, if you read through WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK, you'll see that talk pages are intended for discussion of improvements to the article, not the article subject. Your comments were an attempt to discuss the subject, which is generally discouraged. If you have suggestions to improve the article, that would be great; please post specific proposals on the talk page (specific wording and sources are always helpful). Also, you may consider creating an account to make discussing these topics a little easier. Thanks! See you around!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont like what you did. I hope you are a better person than your actions seem to indicate. It was incredibly insensitive. And from what I can tell you have never been a regular contributor. Please become a member of the community before you try to destroy the community. I am probably going to quit editing today for Wiki because of what you did. Hope that makes you feel better. (Sunnydoo (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC))


 * These sorts of comments are really not helpful. As I've indicated repeatedly on the talk page, I'm doing my best to work collaboratively with everyone who has an interest in this issue. We have inclusion criteria on the article with says "articles need to meet WP:N and have an article to be included", but that part of our criteria isn't being upheld.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Look a lot of us put a lot of time into the resource. We undergo a constant barrage of attacks from people being funny and vandalizing the wall (the main reason it is semi-protected) to people meaning well but doing the wrong thing. Several of us have to visit the site a few times an hour to make sure that it is meeting the standards. If you want to walk into the community and start a discussion- fine I have no problem with that. You made your point. However when you did it the 2nd time, thats what was problematic to me. You are getting into infantile and churlish behavior territory.

If you look at the notability requirements, you can understand there is some vagueness to them. If I am in Denver and the Communist Leader of India dies, but he does not have his own wiki article, what makes him less notable? It may not be notable to me, but it may be to someone else who did not realize he didnt have a page. We find a lot of these issues with foreign notability types. It is published in a credible world newspaper and by the BBC. What makes him not notable? Secondly, people do fall through the woodwork. I worked on a scientist that died this month who didnt have an article yet she developed the Whooping Cough Vaccine. You think that wasnt notable? It probably saved well into the millions of lives.

I think you are looking for an end product and that is fine to you. We are looking at it as a living resource. There is no problem with leaving the names up for 30 days and then disposing them. That has worked well in the past and although it takes a little work on the back end, it saves a lot of conflict on the front end over who is arguing who is notable or not and who ultimately decides that they are in fact notable. This is a board for everyone- not just you. Just because you are having problems with your Blackberry and lag time doesnt necessitate an emergency for all of us.

I am sorry I was testier earlier and its probably a good thing I didnt say what I wanted to say. But you just dont walk in somewhere and act like you own the place. There is a process to things and you violated that process and trust. If you want to see how to facilitate a discussion correctly, look at the Table Section that was introduced earlier in the month.(Sunnydoo (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Please read WP:OWN, as well as the other policy pages I've linked. The article isn't open just to the regulars, nor are they a privileged editing class. I've reverted a whole of 1 time on the article, ever, which was explained amply on the talk page before and after the revert, on top of an open invitation for anyone else to revert me with discussion. This combativeness I'm seeing everywhere is unwarranted. I'm following policy to the letter (beyond that, even).


 * I made a few bold edits in line with our content guidelines and applicable to every other article across the site. I was reverted on each one. I opened discussion on the talk page for each topic, and was met with a (frankly unacceptable) level of hostility. I've been civil and engaging to every single editor who's wished to discuss the topic with me. On the topic of notability, I was told by the opposing editor to try the edit again, but instead of doing that, I left discussion open for another week and asked for further input. When I didn't get any, I tried the edit again and received waves of anger and bad faith. As a measure of goodwill, I posted thankful messages to a few of the more level-headed editors, hoping that'd cultivate collaboration. I just got berated more for that.


 * Look, just because I'm not lashing out at everyone and I'm going well out of my way to be nice in every one of my comments doesn't mean I can be treated like a whipping post. There's this anti-Jess bandwagon on the page, and I see from the archives I'm not the only one who's been treated that way. It needs to stop. It's fine for you to come here and discuss behavior with me, but the idea that my reverting an edit once to spur discussion as WP:BRD suggests and then civilly handling the boatload of fallout is somehow indicative of problematic behavior is lunacy. I deal with contentious religious articles nearly every day... this article is in its whole own class. I'm going to continue civilly engaging everyone on the talk page, and I'm going to continue trying to come up with creative ways to collaborate with everyone on solving any legitimate issues that arise. If there's some kind of problem with that, let me know, but otherwise I think we can leave this to the article talk page.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I don't have a blackberry. You got that comment from someone who's been vehemently opposing all of my edits to the page. That was one of his arguments for opposing them.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then I apologize for arguing with misinformation. I accepted what was said at face value. However, the hostility you are seeing isnt necessarily being directed just at you. Like I said we have seen a number of attacks on the page over the past year. It got to the point where we had to semi-protect it and each editor is still seeing problems weekly with it being vandalized. We also have several running battles with people who dont feel animals or objects such as Trees qualify for the list. Those are reason #1 why when wholesale changes are made, people flip out. Also its not that change is scary, there are just quite a few different editors that handle a variety of sources. To give you an example, we have a guy who does nothing but watch a database of Catholic priests. When a substantial member of the clergy dies (usually Bishop and above), he will enter an article on Wiki and it usually happens in the overnight hours (the original guy lives in Europe). There is a 2nd gentleman who is from Wisconsin who will come in in the early morning (around 6 or 7 am EST) that will update that information off of a red link and convert it to a blue link stub with the Catholic source codes.

The 2nd part of this is again we have tried what you are saying in the past. It leads to contention because someone has to judge whether or not someone who is a redlink is put in. If the death is covered by AP or the BBC, I see no reason not to put the person in the database for 30 days. If someone thinks that person is special enough, they can then start an article to save the link. However, with the number of editors we have and the different functions they carry out, many of us dont have time to necessarily start an article for every person that is linked. I for one carry do a lot of the grunt work as far as research of all of the deaths to confirm "Cause of Death" and handle many of the "Breaking News" deaths in the EST overnight hours.

My last point still stands though. This is more of a clearinghouse rather than an end product. That is it is meant to be a source of workable information and not just a dead list of names. If it as you say that you are not concerned with lag on your blackberry which the other gentleman alluded to, what is your problem with the current system? I know you were arguing about notability and I re-read the notability policy. However, again there is some vagueness to it and I would want to get your opinion on why you think someone is not directly notable enough? And I will let you use a current example of a redlink- check out Gabriel Țepelea, 96, Romanian politician, MP (1990–2000), natural causes. [39] (Romanian) from April 12th. Currently members of the US Congress and State Congresses as well as British, Irish, Australian and Scottish MPs are given links and stub articles and listed in blue after various editors deal with their case. Why would a Romanian politician with the same basic job description be unworthy? The death was covered in the European papers and by the BBC European branch. (Sunnydoo (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks
Thanks Jess for the Wikipedia intro and orientation. Regards --Dizzybee (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Hope you enjoy it here! If you have any questions, feel free to ask, or put the template on your talk page. Good luck!   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Get a sense of humor
THE INTERNET IS SERIOUZ BUzINESS!

Yikes do you ever need to calm down when people are trying to poke fun at something. Recently you had jumped all over the 'ban hammer' when a user changed the computer keyboard page.

This was funny, tasteful, and likely only meant to be temporary - you stole the humor out of it, and furthermore made yourself look like a (insert flavorful word for unjust angry person).

Whereas I agree the post eventually needed to be corrected, giving the user "His final warning" is showing you are on a power trip and must feed the need for control.

Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.226.93 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The user to whom I issued a final warning had already vandalized the page multiple times, and was bragging about hopping ips. There are lots of places on the internet for humor; wikipedia articles are not one of them. This is a serious, academic project, which is used by billions of people for actual research. Randall would certainly not approve of vandalizing it in his name. If you want to have some fun in the spirit of xkcd (a comic I love, btw), there are plenty of venues to do so: uncyclopedia, xkcd's wiki, etc. This is not the place, any more than spraypainting obscenities all over the books at your local library and letting someone else clean up the mess. Just enjoy the comic for what it is, and take it to the forums if you want to get involved.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I myself tried to revert his vandalism here, on this talk page, and on the articlespace as well, as it popped up on two of my watch-list pages at once. I gave him levels one through four vandalism templates, each one being removed within a matter of seconds (literally; I couldn't type them fast enough to keep them on his page), before I declared I was going to AN/V - and he was banned before I hit "save page". Good riddance. It wasn't good humor, it was single-purpose trolling and vandalism suited to 4chan. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 05:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks Kalotus, and no probem! I hope you enjoy editing here. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Request edit, lightbulb
I am an electrician and I just thought it would be humorous to have a COI request for the wikipedians changing lightbulbs article. I can see how it affects the backlog count and may cause editors to waste time on the article. At the same time it may be humorous to leave it in the category as a joke to play on editors new to the request edit list. Regulars of that list would just ignore that article, knowing it is in jest.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the humor in it. On the other hand, the Requested edit category is a serious category which is necessary to the project for handling the requests of new users. Due to the nature of wikipedia, we can also expect new users to see the requested edit without being familiar with its history, so it staying there for any long term is probably not viable. Perhaps you can copy the formatting of the requested edit template, and paste that in the top of the talk page section. That way, it'll show up like a requested edit (for humorous reasons), but not interfere with the normal function of the requested edit category. Would that work? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied the text from the template, and I think I removed the 'ad cat' section. I wonder if it would look nice on the main article page as well with -see talk, (Edit request section) underneath it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. Glad that solution worked out :) It's been good meeting you! See you around,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Just to let you know. :)  Lynch  7  18:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update! I didn't have the page watchlisted (just responding to edit requests not on my watchlist). I responded back there. Good meeting you!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement
Thanks WWB Too. I'm glad my revision was helpful! Looking forward to working with you guys in the future! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Plantinga edit
Dear Jess,

I recently updated Alvin Plantinga's Wikipedia page, but my edit was taken down almost immediately. My edit was to include, in the personal history section, the fact that in June, 2011, Alvin Plantinga had a problem with his AC.

I understand that this is a fairly trivial fact to include. And I understand that, for economy's sake, not everything about everyone can be included on Wikipedia, so if my comment was not deemed important enough, I understand.

However, I was a little confused by how you characterized my response. You suggested that it was a "joke" response, and you implied that it was not accurate. I'll admit that I initially thought it worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because I thought it was humorous, but then again several things are notable because of their humor. It was also entirely accurate, and well-cited. I included a link to a real youtube video showing Alvin Plantinga, as featured on a local news show. In it, Plantinga commented on his recent AC troubles. I thought this was funny -- and, as such, worthy of note -- because Plantinga is a famous philosopher, and the news segment at no point referenced this. Furthermore, I think that Plantinga's willingness to present himself as just a "local guy" shows great humility, and therefore provides valuable insight into his character.

I'd like you to add the edit back in. If you deem it isn't worth the space, I understand that and will respect your decision. But I do not want to be painted as an individual who is attempting to misinform or anger others, and so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't characterize my intentions as such.

Yours,

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.148.12 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. Thanks for your comments. We don't typically include content just because it's humorous, or because it provides "insight into the subject's character". WP:N, WP:Weight and WP:V determine which content we include - that is to say, the reliable sources determine it for us. Youtube is not typically a reliable source, so we'd have to have something better in order to include such content. Please read over WP:BRD when you have a chance; per that page, the next step after being reverted is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Feel free to do so there, and you may find input from other editors as well. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Turbocharger Request Edit
Thanks for answering my request edit. The original image is crisp, but the thumb is blurry. I've had this problem before, but never found out how to fix it. Is it a ratio problem maybe? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I think it's just a browser issue. Images get blurry if my browser zooms in and out. Sorry for pestering. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi King. Sorry I didn't see your post earlier, I've been off wikipedia for a few days. Glad everything worked out! Let me know if there's anything else you need help with :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There's mountains I could use help with, but to avoid monopolizing your time, I'll just bring up that Silver has been poking around for help manning the request edit queue if you're interested. I have a couple in there that are pretty clear-cut improvements to subject articles. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mann Jess. If the offer still stands, I have one issue in particular I could really use help with. See my COIN post on EUCLID (university) here. I feel I have exhausted all my options at this point... User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, I've been getting more into clearing the Requested Edit queue recently. I wish I could have been more involved with the COI-based requests, but they tend to be very lengthy, which has made it hard. You're right that 1 month is way too long. Way too long. Most requests get handled long before that, within the day or week timeframe. I think part of the issue is that the requests you've made appear to be very substantial; for future edits, it might help if you could break them up into separate, small changes. I'm sure that would encourage editors to hop in and handle the edit requests in a timely fashion. Anyway, I have some work to do tonight, but I'll do my best to get in there and review the request. Sorry the community has been so slow with this - we're usually a little more on top of the ball! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good feedback RE taking it one step at a time. Lets start with one. According to the current article: The State of Maine includes EUCLID on its list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions".[9] I've provided the updated list to show this is no longer true. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Review request, if you're able
Hi there Jess, thanks again for your edits on Academy of Achievement. As I mentioned on that Talk page last week, I'm currently working on a related article, EduCap, and wonder if you would have the time or interest to review a new draft I have prepared? I have the same COI with EduCap, so it's my goal to refrain from any direct edits to the mainspace.

The proposed draft is here, and my explanation of the draft on EduCap Talk page is here. You'll see there I've been discussing it with DGG, but he seems busy and I don't want to burden him too much. I've also sought assistance at WikiProject Cooperation, where I've also sought to bring new voices to EduCap Talk.

Let me know if you can help. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi WWB. Thanks for the invitation to look the draft over. I've been off wikipedia for a few days, and my time is kind of stretched, but I'll do my best to review your changes over the weekend if I can. It's been good working with you - I'm sure I'll see you back over at the article! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

When is new not new?
Appreciate the greeting. I'm not new, but have changed identities, kind of accidentally. I'd forgotten I already had an account. So now I have two. It seems a tad dishonest to maintain them both, is there any way to integrate both my selves into a single account? Alienplayer (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:Multiple Accounts (also WP:MULTIPLE). Having two is fine, but you're usually encouraged to place the template on the secondary user page. (For instance, I am also User:Jess, so that page uses the Alternate account template. Eventually I'll switch to using Jess primarily, and then I'll remove the template from that user page and put it on User:Mann_jess instead) If you want to delete one of the accounts, you can (effectively) do that by changing its name and then scrambling the password (see WP:UNC), but this is not necessary. I don't think it's possible to merge contribution histories for two accounts, but you could ask at WP:Village pump; after all, I am wrong sometimes :P I'm glad you decided to come back! Let me know if you have any other questions. All the best,   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wolff Olins edit
Hi Jess, Thanks for your response to my comments on the Wolff Olins page! I've written up a "suggested change" so if you have a moment, I'd love to hear what you think and if appropriate, have you add it into the article. thanks so much, Sbl19 (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding PHP criticism section
Hi, I was the one who made that section. I wasn't logged in. I understand the tone could be a lot less negative. I just think it would be worth pointing out in the article opinions towards it, trying to be neutral and presenting both sides, of course. AJF (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ajfweb. It's good to meet you! :) I'm not necessarily opposed to including a criticism section, but you're correct that the tone was a problem, and we were lacking in some quality reliable sources for all of the claims. IIRC, there was also a problem with weasel words, which we usually like to avoid, such as "Many", "Some", etc. I think the best thing to do would be to find some good sources which talk about various criticisms of php, and then propose the section on the talk page so we can work on it a bit. Would that work? Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

editing page
i am trying to add our job search engines to the "job search engines wiki" page ...

cbcjobs.com - general job search engine acetiger.com - first ever technical job search engine

help would be appreciated, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califmerchant2 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Califmerchant. Thanks for the contributions! I understand you're trying to add those sites to the article, and if they are notable resources, I'm sure they would be a great addition. However, AFAICT, the list you're changing only includes sites which pass WP:N, and therefore have a wikipedia article devoted just to them. I don't know whether these meet that criteria (maybe they do), but without any reliable sources, it's really hard to say. If you can find some quality reliable sources which talk about these sites, then feel free to re-enable the requested edit template on the article talk page, and I'm sure an editor will be by to make the change! Let me know if you have any other questions! Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello.

I cannot edit the page myself. It's semi-protected, and I'm an anonymous editor. I would like to request that the edit be implemented, unless I am missing some important information. Please let me know. Alert me on my talk page. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Deaths in 2012
An hour and 42 minutes since you were reverted isn't really much time to have let the conversation progress, regardless of the time of day where you are. Dru of Id (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're referring to... but I let it sit more than 4 days before re-inserting the content. See the discussion Non-notable entries on the talk page for background and an explanation. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You boldly removed, were reverted in the next edit 13 minutes later , then removed it again, an hour and 42 minutes later. Dru of Id (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

...And I was your first respondent in that discussion, although I've forgotten how to follow them... Dru of Id (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I also explained that on the talk page, before and after making it. The first revert you listed was made with the intent to spur discussion on the topic, but it was immediately reverted by a user who hadn't read or responded to my edit summary, and hadn't read or responded to the talk page. His stated reason for the revert was that "we do things this way", which I understood and was attempting to discuss. The goal of the edit was to spur discussion, which an immediate revert without discussion wouldn't have accomplished. However, my first revert (the second edit you listed) accomplished that goal. Once discussion started, I encouraged anyone unhappy with the edit to remove it as they saw fit. All of this should be perfectly in line with policy. I've gone way out of my way to work collaboratively and above the board on all my edits to this article, so if anything else is unclear, let me know. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And yep, I recognized you from the previous discussion. I appreciated your input there. You were the first to bring up the to-do list issue. How did/do you feel about the WP:Requested articles/Deaths list I created? As I mentioned on the talk page, the requested articles section in WP space is intended just for that, so I was hoping that list might be useful to some regulars of the Deaths in.. articles.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Here Pass a Method   talk  18:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi, This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam regarding a dispute between other editors, which briefly touches on some of your edits. Feel free to comment on the thread and provide your own perspective on events. bobrayner (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation
Mann jess, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case
I have filed an arbcom case related to the mailing list that you are alledged to be coordinating with. You can review the case at Arbitration/Requests/Case and provide a statement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Response at arb case unclear?
Hi,

I was reading your response at the arb case, and I'm kind of confused by the first sentence: "I'm pretty sure there is a mailing list, but it's certainly not the one Anupam is alleging, and I'm certainly not on it". By this do you mean that you think that bobraynor et al. are using an off-site wiki list that you just don't happen to be on, or that some other unnamed group might be organizing off-site. I think you may mean the latter, but the first time I read it I thought you meant the former. Any chance for a clarification in case other people are also confused? a13ean (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. Yes, I meant the latter. I'll clarify in case others are confused. I appreciate you letting me know there was some ambiguity! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Heh. Thanks Abhishikt. Dealing with these contentious pov-pushing issues is draining and often unrewarding, so I appreciate the notice. I've been getting into less confrontational topics recently (and taking a bit of a wikibreak very recently) to get away from all the drama, but I've always appreciated your input and contributions where our paths have crossed in the past. Keep up the good work! :) All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit
Accidently erased mine.. Could you please restore it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops! I hit an edit conflict, and somehow I must have done something wrong handling it. I've restored your comment. Thanks for letting me know! For future reference, if I ever make a mistake like this, you're more than welcome to revert me. Thanks Viriditas.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jankiel Wiernik
Hi! You seem to be one of the last still active users editing the article on Jankiel Wiernik. Could you please go though my edition and fix possible grammar errors and perhaps the mess the references are (how do you quote an article which is both online and in a book, and in the language other than Enlish)? Paszczakowna (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"180" talk
While the issue of the deletion proposal is meaningless now that it was removed and I'm done with it for now because of that, I still have to wonder about the propriety of you closing a discussion you are personally involved in. Seems like both a conflict of interest and a devious way to shut down contrary opinion. 67.233.243.176 (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't close down a discussion. I hatted a bunch of comments verging on personal attacks which did nothing but accuse other editors of bad faith and bias. That doesn't help cultivate the kind of constructive, collaborative atmosphere which is appropriate here; it serves only to derail constructive discussion and inflame other editors. The content is still there - it wasn't removed - it was just collapsed so that it wouldn't cause further drama. Please don't continue that sort of behavior on other articles. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But you DID close down the discussion by "hatting" it. It's amazing how you are more concerned with factual comments about an editor than that editor's unconstructive, inflammatory edits based solely on his personal vendetta against a particular person and his organization. 67.233.241.79 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, if you have a problem with an editor, we have a process for that. Take your concerns to his talk page. If that doesn't pan out, then seek help at WP:RFC/U or a noticeboard like WP:WQA or WP:ANI. The correct venue is not, under any circumstances, to rail against him on an article talk page. That's not what article talk pages are for, and it only serves to create hostility and drama. To be frank, I'm tired of repeating this. If you have additional concerns, feel free to let me know, but please stop telling me how appropriate your comments were; they were not.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And BTW, your current line of discourse on that page is getting bad as it is. I think it's time for you to move on to other topics, or let this discussion go.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping I might have some of your time, in relation to the "180Movie" page. I realize that you might sick of this topic already, but I'm hoping to improve the article and make it comply with Wikipedia Community Standards, if its able to, but I'm extremely new to the Wikipedia process. I've read plenty of Wikipedia articles, but have never engaged this way before. I am studying as best I can, but some experienced help would be greatly appreciated if you are willing. If you are willing please let me know and I will discuss the couple of issues on the 180 page that I'm currently trying to tackle. If you don't wish to be involved any further I will respect that decision, just please let me know that you wish to disengage so I can know not to bother you. Thanks. Zegron (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Secular Humanism May 2012
Hi, Jess.

The other two editors who have contributed to the discussion so far have opined that "embraces justice" should be removed for the time being. As they agree, and as the phrase breaches both WP:OR and MOS:LEDE, I think it's appropriate to remove the statement until a reliable source is found and appropriate information is added to the body of the text. Best, 89.100.207.51 (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 89.100, you are approaching this entirely wrong, and it's not going to result in anything positive. When you enter a dispute, the first step is discussion - a step you entirely skipped over. You insisted, instead, on starting a 30-day process seeking outside opinions called an RfC. Now, 2 days in to the RfC, you've taken to edit warring based on the limited opinions expressed therein. If you wanted to seek opinions and form consensus based on them in short order, discussion was the correct step, which is a fact I advised you of repeatedly. As for your edit summaries elsewhere, please read WP:EW carefully. EW does not mean the same thing as 3rr. You've made multiple reverts in the course of a few days to impose your suggested revision onto the article before consensus has formed. That's edit warring. To be quite frank, it's engaging behaviors you're exhibiting now that's driving me away from wikipedia. You've come to the article with a battlefield mentality, and have thus entirely alienated me from your position. That's saying a lot, since (as I've expressed repeatedly), I agree with you that the lead is poor, and I've continually expressed that agreement for the past few years this discussion has taken place without you. Yet, because of how you've engaged me, refusing to accept outside input and suggestions (now from multiple editors), you've driven me away from that support, and potentially away from the article and site. That's not a net positive for the project. I'd encourage you to rethink the way you're approaching other editors. In the meantime, I think I'll be retiring for a little while to concentrate on working with people who actually want to collaborate.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm not trying to drive you away from editing. If I'm coming across that way, I do apologise. But the problem is that WP:CONLIMITED says that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." That the current lede is longstanding doesn't change the fact that it breaches both OR and LEDE. The other two editors that have contributed to the discussion so far both agree that the "embraces justice" should be removed for the time being at least. I opened an RFC in order to generate discussion, not to skip it. If the lede is a long-standing problem, I fail to see how inviting editors from outside the usual cohort in order to generate fresh discussion is unhelpful. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unhelpful because you refused to discuss the issue beforehand. The instructions for starting an RfC explicitly state that it is dispute resolution, and should be used only after discussion has been tried and stalled. All editors who have spoken on the issue have agreed that an RfC was inappropriate... but you insisted on edit warring to keep the RfC alive. So, fine, now we have an RfC running, which is a 30-day process to gauge consensus of outside editors. The appropriate thing to do is wait those 30 days until the RfC is concluded and closed before trying to judge the opinions of a limited group of 3 editors.
 * I'm well aware of the policies at work here; I've been an editor for many years, and I've been citing these policies in previous discussions on this issue. I don't like that justice is in the lead either, or that the entire def is unsourced. We settled on that def because, unlike the other options, it encapsulates the topic in an acceptable way. I was willing to accept the def as an application of IAR until we got something better. Whittling it down to another unsourced def with less context is not an improvement. You need to have patience that consensus will form, and the issue will resolve, and not blindly shove things into the article before they're ready; edit warring is never helpful.
 * Despite your edit warring, there is currently no consensus for a change. 3 editors have spoken up in the course of a day, one of whom supported keeping the current def and adding "justice" to the body instead. 2 others supported moving it from the lead to the body, and explicitly rejected adding "secular ethics". In addition to my comments on the issue, that is the entirety of the editors involved so far, and you've somehow gauged that consensus is to cut justice out of the lead, leave it out of the body, and add "secular ethics" to the def. That's not what consensus dictates, acting now is premature at best, and I'm tired of explaining that while you treat this issue like a battleground. If you're interested in doing this the right way, then please revert your change (per WP:BRD), and wait for the issue to be discussed. When discussion has closed, we can assess consensus and make any appropriate changes. If you're not willing to do that and actually listen to the input of the community and follow policy, then I'm not interested in trying to force you to collaborate; I have bigger priorities in my life, and I'm tired of dealing with this issue on wikipedia over and over again.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 27 May 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 "Secular Humanism". Thank you. --89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions.
Did you actually read the source that you reinstated with [|this edit]?

I also think that it would be helpful if you didn't refer to my 2nd edit on the article, which was to a different section as my first edit as "edit warring".

What word would you find more fitting than 'argued' when you are contrasting Encyclopedia Britannica 2011 with the contents of a book that states "In common understanding, agnosticism is contrasted with atheism. In the popular sense an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists, while an atheist disbelieves that God exists. However, this common contrast of agnosticism with atheism will hold only if one assumes that atheism means positive atheism. In the popular sense, agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism. Since negative atheism by definition simply means not holding any concept of God, it is compatible with neither believing nor disbelieving in God." - do note that negative atheism is generally not well received with other scholars in the field such as Theodore Drange and Kai Nielsen. Besides that book there are 2 sources from 1880'ish. Is that really content that you are comfortable taking responsibility for? un☯mi 08:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to you specifically in my edit summary. The content has been reverted and re-reverted quite a few times just today. That's not productive. However, you were 2 reverts within that series, which wasn't helping matters either. It would be good to discuss this on the article talk page, not my talk or in edit summaries, given the contentious nature of the article. I'll briefly answer your questions here, since you asked. If you have an issue with one of the sources, you should bring that up on the article talk page (or point me to it if I missed it)
 * 1) Yes, I read the sources. I didn't revert for the sources in particular; I was trying to get the edit warring to stop. That said, which source in particular are you taking issue with? I haven't seen you express anything on talk (besides opposition to religioustolerance, on which point you have apparent agreement)
 * 2) Why are we only contrasting Britannica and Martin? Why not all the other sources you removed? Further, why not the variety of other sources which could be found to replace the ones you removed which define atheism in such a way to be compatible with agnosticism? Have you searched for other sources which discuss this issue? If you have, you should present your findings on the article talk page. I think you'll find that I, and others, are not opposed to new content being added, or even this content in particular. However, we need to encapsulate all the varied understandings of the concept, not just a very small subset as a response to Abrahamic religions in particular.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "you were 2 reverts within that series" huh? I made 3 edits to 2 different sections and neither was a 'revert' in any reasonable conception of the word.


 * "It would be good to discuss this on the article talk page" It certainly would, but as I am the one referring to the sources on that talk-page I think that you are preaching to the choir here.


 * "Yes, I read the sources. .. I was trying to get the edit warring to stop." - What!?


 * "Why not all the other sources you removed?" Which sources? The sources that I neglected to reposition properly in this edit are actually the EB ones supporting my position. Or are you referring to something else?


 * "the ones you removed which define atheism in such a way to be compatible with agnosticism? Have you searched for other sources which discuss this issue? If you have, you should present your findings on the article talk page." Are you joking? The sources are already there. When the most respected encyclopedia in the world states that they are clearly contrasted then that is pretty much pushing into WP:GEVAL territory - doubly so when that EB article is written by Kai Nielsen a renowned scholar and unwavering atheist himself.


 * "However, we need to encapsulate all the varied understandings of the concept" We need to do that just as much as we need to imply that the Moon is actually made of green cheese, while I am sure that some may believe it is. un</b><b style="color:#566">☯</b><b style="color:#466">m</b><b style="color:#366">i</b></i> 09:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Per your last comment, it appears you're claiming that every definition besides the one you're advancing ("atheism is the position that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist") is fringe. Considering it predates Christianity, and has been historically and currently applied to individuals relative to a variety of religions... and again, considering our sourcing... that would not appear to be the case. As for the article history, you initially reverted my months-old removal of the text, which started all this. You even said it was a revert yourself on the talk page in your first comment to "Bracketing the referent". You were then reverted, the reverter was reverted, others added the content back in other forms a few times, leaving a state distinct from what you had added, and then you came back in to reintroduce similar material, disputing the compatibility between atheism and agnosticism. That's all called an edit war. Regarding the rest, with all due respect, I really don't have any interest in diving into this right now. That's why I asked in my last comment for you to keep this on (and respond on) the article talk page. I've been involved in so many of these "definition of atheism" discussions, and the only similarity they share is being a massive frustrating time sink. If you wouldn't mind, I'd prefer to keep the discussion there, and weigh in if I feel I have the time and motivation. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * disputing the compatibility between atheism and agnosticism Huh? Did you read EB2011 at all? You will find loads of dictionaries who include exactly the contrast between agnosticism and atheism in their definitions. What sources inform your belief that they are compatible?
 * Your 'months-old' revert of the text was made on the basis of what exactly? The text you reverted back then was the result of much discussion that you then skimmed by your own words. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#802">u</b><b style="color:#701">n</b><b style="color:#601">☯</b><b style="color:#501">m</b><b style="color:#401">i</b></i> 00:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unomi, I really don't want to discuss this here. Please take it to the article talk page. To answer your question, I checked the talk page and found opposition (far from support) of the text, and so removed it. No one objected. I still only see opposition now. The discussions you linked to, even, show opposition to the text. While you could try arguing I was out of line following WP:BOLD to remove the text, it's downright silly to suggest I had no possible justification. Please just take this to the article talk page, and let's keep it there. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I still only see opposition now. Perhaps that is down to not reading every word ?
 * ...His language: "Atheism is generally contrasted with agnosticism, though at times it has been argued that they are compatible" seems more accurate than just stating obtusely that "atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism, with which it is generally contrasted." In fact the latter sounds rather convoluted and poorly worded. -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Does this read like opposition to you?
 * What about this? ?

The reasons that these discussions take so long is exactly because there is a contingent of editors that seem to think that WP:RS and WP:GEVAL are optional. You are the one not engaging on the talk page there, and this is even though you reverted my edit - please undo your revert of me if you aren't going to engage in discussing the relative merits. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#546">u</b><b style="color:#445">n</b><b style="color:#345">☯</b><b style="color:#245">m</b><b style="color:#145">i</b></i> 02:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to ask again. My talk page is not the place for discussion of article content. I responded to you on the article talk page, as have others. You have quite a bit of input already. A lot of that input has been to suggest that your handling of this situation is poor. Telling other editors to GTFO, your confrontational attacks of others, and your insistence on dragging out discussion in the wrong venue after being asked repeatedly to stop is certainly not helping matters. I have every right to participate in the discussion as much or little as I see fit. As it stands, I think you have ample input, and your resistance to accepting that input doesn't motivate me to waste my time providing more. Keep this on the article talk page, and if you have additional issues with editors, use normal methods of DR (such as an RfC or 3O). Please stop bringing it here.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in 2012
With respect, I do feel that the {Bare URLs} tag is needed. The present list of references in the article do include a number of them. Something that was to be avoided, according to those editors most pressing for the changes.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Derek. Hmm, you are correct that there were still bare urls. I've cleaned those up. There shouldn't be any left. That should address the problem of the problem template. Let me know if you have any additional concerns about it! Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Jess. That's fine now - thanks. However, I would guess it may be an ongoing and recurring issue, unless some editors remain vigilant.  Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See
This SPI brought by someone else: Sockpuppet investigations/Mthoodhood which I have responded to, as these are just the most recent of a number of socks adding copyvio to various articles. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by user:Zachariel
Zachariel has made extensive changes to History of Astrology, which I reverted twice per BRD and he reverted back. I'm not going to revert, but am considering taking this to the edit warring board, as this is the fifth time he's done this in the past month or so, despite abundant warnings. Please advise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted the changes and made a rather lengthy post discussing some potential problems on the article talk page. Hopefully we can get past the edit warring stuff and onto more collaborative involvement on these subjects. If you could comment on talk with some of your observations about the changes, that would be helpful. Thanks for letting me know!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "some additions are probably positive, while others could probably be improved (and/or need discussion)" - well, those in need of improvement or discussion are open to improvement and discussion through the usual WP process. Which does not include the wholesale removal of uncontroversial improvements. The two concerns you specified are easily settled. The text of those specific points can be cut - they can be reintroduced by others if they wish. All you have done is act as an agent of Dominus Vobisdu's disruption at his request. Please read this and this - the two posts I made explaining to DV that he was responsible for justifing his editorial bahaviour, which, because he was unable to do that, led him to approach you and several others via talk page requests, to canvass support for insinuations that my contrbutions should be defined as edit-warring.


 * You say "I've seen a lot of edit warring on this article" - no you haven't, the page was dead of interest until I contributed. It only has your interest now because my edits are trailed by DV, (to be reverted uncritically). Note DV's call to you also went to Dougweller and ItsmeJuidth. Dougweller declined, ItsmeJudith got involved, and you just went ahead and did your friend a favour.


 * So please justify why you would rather have a page full of errors, dead links, dubious-discuss, and citation-needed tags, poor-quality content written in Edwardian style English, full of inconsistencies in style, content without references, and material that doesn't belong on the page?  The sort of content that had caused the page to be proposed for deletion? If you can't, and all you are doing is working on some kind of anti-astrology agenda to take the astrology  content of WP backwards, then this situation must go to independent review. --  Zac  Δ talk! 10:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Zac, I didn't respond to "do my friend a favor", and I'd appreciate if you didn't belittle my contributions by saying so. I responded in the same way that I always handle these sorts of issues with any editor; I looked over the material and identified a few issues, reverted to the version before the edit war, and listed the issues I saw on the talk page in hopes that we could work to improve them. I've been wholly transparent and collaborative, so it would be helpful if you didn't turn this into a combative "me vs DV" mess. I appreciate you working to improve the article, but we need to make sure the improvements are not introducing further issues in the process. That should not be hard, but following the normal BRD process is important, and edit warring is only going to raise tempers and get us nowhere positive. Please don't do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like your plea has fallen on deaf ears, because he reverted you, too: []. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith here because it looks like a ploy to shift the burden to other editors to find and sift though his changes in article space instead of proposing them on the talk page first. Even Judith has commented that he's wasting his time and ours. He's pulled this same stunt many times in the past. I'm tight for time now with real-world duties, so I don't have time to sift to his changes, but I see some major POV, WEIGHT and RS problems. For example, this line:
 * "Mundane astrology is therefore known to be one of the oldest branches of astrology"
 * is sourced to a fringe pseudohistory, as is much of the Mundane astrology article he resurected. Then there's this line:
 * "Ulla Koch-Westenholz, in her 1995 book Mesopotamian Astrology, argues that this ambivalence between a theistic and mechanic worldview defines the Babylonian concept of celestial divination as one which, despite its heavy reliance on magic, remains free of implications of targeted punishment with the purpose of revenge, and so “shares some of the defining traits of modern science: it is objective and value-free, it operates according to known rules, and its data are considered universally valid and can be looked up in written tabulations”.
 * Which, while reliable sourced, looks cherry picked to give the impression that astrology has scientific validity.
 * A lot of his changes sound like a paean to astrology, a concern shared by Judith: [].
 * And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 * I'm having a difficult time seeing Zac's moves as anything but a disruptive and tendentious attempt to push his desired changes through by overwheming the editing process. After months of trying, I've given up on trying to reason with him long ago, as he holds policy and consensus in very low regard. He also treats this as a personal dispute, because of which I interact with him as little as possible. Thanks for trying, at least. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
For your thoughtful edits! I had merely moved items from one article to the other without fact-checking what had been in place. I'm glad someone with discernment could see through some of the items that needed to go. Insomesia (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Mark Phillips
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 89.100, this is disruptive. Templating a user because they templated you is never helpful. Your history of disruptive and tendentious editing is going to result in sanctions down the road. Do you want that? Please calm down, take things slowly, and try to work with other editors.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you warn someone for a certain behaviour, you have to be prepared for them to warn you if you are behaving in an identical manner. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You really need to calm down, and back away for a bit. This is going to escalate quickly, and it appears this behavior is going to wind up at ANI again sooner than I would have anticipated. That's not going to be good for anyone. I'm getting off wikipedia now to do other things. I'd recommend you do the same for a while, and come back to this with a level head.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Sex Abuse Article
Hey can you revert all the edits that Rivera? made in the article Catholic Sex Abuse. I saw that you were covering the page and giving out some suggestions at one point. This author made like a bunch of minor changes that no one thinks applies/should have been done with out sources. He changed the whole gist of the article into a defense of the C.C. No sources, no citation. Me and a couple of other edits would appreciate if you look into it and roll it back to before Rivera's edits preferably to the one right after where username: Bilby just finished editing it. 12.129.87.3 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I agree there are some issues with the new content. I commented to that effect on the talk page. Perhaps Ricerca will decide to participate in the discussion. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Renato Laranja
Hey Mann Jess. I see you've been keeping a careful eye on the Laranja page, which god knows needs it. I do the same thing, only you do a much better job then me. Given that this individual is kinda half-real, half-fictional I'm not really sure which policies apply to what stays and what goes. I'm guessing you know though. Could you direct me to them? Any wiki wisdom would be appreciated. Thanks! Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Buddy23Lee. Well, WP:BLP would apply to any part of the article on Orange, but not to the parts on Laranja. Obviously, there is a grey area somewhere in the middle given the nature of the topic and character. We should err on the side of BLP when in doubt. In its current state, that means nearly the entire article. Beyond that, our normal wikipedia policies would apply. I think it's going to be difficult to find quality sourcing discussing this subject, so if it remains an article, it may be a stub forever. In that state, it may qualify for AfD; I'm not sure. I have to run out the door, but hopefully that helps a bit! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank Jess. Yea, I'm obviously unsure of that grey area too. I appreciate the wisdom. As far as stub status goes, I get the feeling that if Renato keeps productive he'll garner quite a few more references and content over the next year or two. Although it looks like someone tried to WP:Speedy today, so perhaps the article's day of reckoning draws near...? Thanks again. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ;-)
I'm around, just not posting a TON, preoccupied with going back to College, fun fun. Mostly just stir up crap if I can. ;-) — raeky  t  03:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh. Well, I hope you're enjoying school at least. I know a college education doesn't match up to the education you get editing wikipedia, but try to make the best of it, you still might be able to glean some learnin' out of the experience ;) Looking forward to running into you again, even if it happens only sparsely (I've been taking a breather as well recently!)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Appology
Jess,

I am really sorry for my rants. I apologize for mouthing off to you about deleting the Noahic page. I was the one throwing a WP guideline around without double checking... namely WP:POVFORK and totally had it wrong. I'm really sorry for being such an ass. Please forgive me... and next time I will be more thorough. Jasonasosa (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh. It's no problem at all. Really :) Thanks for the message! I appreciate the hard work you've put in so far, and I'm looking forward to working with you more! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's just... those Weekly Torah portions pages have been around a long time and I had no idea they were up for question. Sometimes I get impatient, and I should have waited for User:Dougweller to clear things up. Btw, thanks for the barnstar... If I am wrong about something, I will fess up to it.Jasonasosa (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see...
Talk:Noach (parsha)

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Renato Laranja for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Renato Laranja is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Renato Laranja until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page
Hello,

Can you direct me to this "talk page"?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.231.207 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there. On the top-right corner of every article, there is a link labelled "Talk". If you click on that link, you'll be directed to the talk page, where we discuss improvements for the article. The talk page for the theism article, for example, is Talk:Theism. The talk page for Agnosticism is Talk:Agnosticism. Looking forward to discussing this with you there! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Renato Laranja, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm open to constructive criticism, templating me for violating TPO was probably not incredibly helpful, particularly in light of the fact that TPO explicitly condones my edit. I've posted further at ANI. I'll wait for an uninvolved admin to come by and take care of the issue, which will hopefully be resolved shortly.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the template. At a glance it appeared you reverted his talk comments for unknown reasons.  My bad. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Noah (parsha) – Procedure question by a relative newbie
Hi, Jess:

As you'd easily be able to learn, I've done a small amount of editing now. But this discussion is the first XfD I've ever been involved with–maybe at all, but surely to the extent of more than "agree/disagree plus one sentence to support." There are a couple of questions I'd like to ask about process, if you don't mind. The first potentially sounds accusatory, but I hereby stipulate it is not. Thanks for your time? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You kicked off the discussion with the belief it would not be controversial. Since you are an experienced editor, why would you have thought that? Are you surprised?
 * 2) I can see some very real content issues stemming from the discussion. In particular, it's a fair question as to whether there is duplication, whether the forking is POV forking or legitimate content forking, and so forth. Still, unless there is a true question about notability, or at least verifiability, wouldn't an actual deletion process be overkill? Isn't there another way to handle that?
 * 3) * Part of what's bugging me in the discussion is that parsha seems patently notable to me. So when someone outright questions notability, it feels, well, anti-Jewish.  I'm sorry, but it does.  That said up front:
 * 4) * The rules are that what people know individually cannot be used to prove notability. I get that. Still, it is clear that in practice certain things are just presumed by common knowledge and don't really need confirmation. I would question whether all former Representatives, Senators, Vice Presidents, or diocesan bishops for that matter, are objectively notable. But we presume that anyway, or at least give benefit of the doubt. So, too, here: If knowledgeable Jews come to this XfD and state that parsha has unquestionably been notable within the Jewish world for millenia, how do people have the right to question that at all? At very least, isn't there a point where the discussion can say, "OK: you've proved at least a strong presumption of notability. We'd like you to fix up some verification references"?
 * 5) If you were an outside observer, instead of the nominator, how would you see the outcome now? Is there any possibility right now except for "Keep but fix" or "No consensus but fix"?


 * Hi Steven. I'll try to answer as best I can, but I do have a bit of a time constraint today. Bear with me.


 * 1) The 53 or so Parsha articles should be deleted, and they will be eventually. You'll notice that all of the editors !voting to delete are tenured editors with a lot of experience. There's a reason for that. Unfortunately, what we've gotten a lot of religious editors who think the articles are useful, and think that's a valid reason to keep them. It's not. If the articles aren't deleted now, keep in mind that almost none of their content is appropriate here, so they will have to be gutted to stubs. Then we'll have 53 stubs, with almost no content, all explaining what one article (Parsha) already does. Sometime after that, someone else will nominate them for deletion, and they'll end up deleted then. I'm still not sure which way this discussion will go (we'll just have to see), but there's a clearly established problem that will have to be resolved in some way.
 * 2) Yes. We can merge the articles. That's what I was proposing initially, which is why I posted on a large array of related articles asking editors to look it over and merge whatever was appropriate. That's also what I've suggested repeatedly on the AfD. Any content which is appropriate for wikipedia should be kept. It just may not be appropriate to have 53 distinct titles covering the very same content as existing articles. AfD isn't just for outright deletions to "purge bad content", or anything. AfD is used when an article title shouldn't exist. Sometimes we keep the content and delete the title, which is what we may want to do here, for any content which is appropriate.
 * 3) The Parsha is notable. I've said this, myself, quite a bit. I didn't nominate Parsha for deletion for that very reason. Please don't accuse editors of opposing viewpoints of being antisemitic. It doesn't do the Jewish articles (or readership) on wikipedia any good to have low quality articles that violate our policies. This is as much for them as for anyone else.
 * 4) Just because a topic is notable doesn't mean it qualifies for its own article. Even if we accept that the content of each individual Parsha is notable in its own rite, that doesn't mean that we have enough content to cover a whole article. This answer is actually more complex than that, but I've explained it before and don't really have the time to go into more detail. In essence, things are being claimed as notable that are not, even if the Parsha generally is. BTW, we have pretty detailed guidelines on notability for a lot of topics, including bishops and military personnel.
 * Yes, there is. Consensus is not a vote. A lot of the keep votes haven't advanced a policy-based reason. A lot of the delete !votes have. A good chunk of the initial keep votes were probably meatpuppets or sockpuppets, for example. Some of the latest keep votes have attempted to address policy-based arguments. It will be up to the closing admin to gauge consensus of those comments against the weight of the opposing comments. I'm honestly not sure how that will go, and I'd have to review the discussion fully again (it's been a day or two at least) to get a better idea.


 * I hope that helps. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That does help. It doesn't fully satisfy yet, but it helps.  I'm spending too much time as well, so I'm not going to respond at length now. But in case I don't get back to this before Saturday night, I feel I should hit a couple of response points:
 * I think you have handled yourself professionally, and even commendably, throughout. You have been clear in your objective throughout. And the one time you veered slightly toward the "N" word, you then backed away. If you took anything I said above as criticizing you personally, that was explicitly not my intention, and I apologize.
 * When I went to "anti-Jewish" just above, I was very careful how I phrased it. I'm working hard not to accuse, and I apologized publicly on the debate page when I went near (or over) the line earlier in the week. Still, while the notability portion of the argument is dying down, there are still people—not you—making it. It doesn't take much due diligence to overcome that particular question, so when people persist in it, it makes me very suspicious of an agenda of some sort besides Wikipedia purity.
 * A lot of the experienced editors are convinced there has been puppetry going on. Maybe. Still, I first came to the debate from a very neutral announcement on a Bulletin Board at WikiProject:Judaism. I can easily see others, registered and otherwise, passing through to see what is happening in the Jewish Wikipedia world, seeing the notice, and coming over to comment, even if they don't usually do things like that. Is that meatpuppetry? It certainly wasn't individual solicitation, and it certainly is a topic that could be of interest to that Project's community. (BTW: Project rates Parsha articles as of mid-importance.)
 * So long for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Scripture versus Book
I was just curious... why is it preferred on WP to just state the "Book of..." better than the actual scripture/verse that a reference comes from? Is it because it seems as if a point is trying to be made by putting the exact verse? If you have any insight on this matter, I would appreciate it. Would the difference be?... if a reasonable source said, "from this (exact scripture) it is supposed that such and such took place" (For example)

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's just a stylistic thing. The specific page number makes sense to have in the reference, so the reader can track down the information easily, but our goal in the prose is to summarize the sources, and such specifics are unnecessary there. For example, imagine that we did this with other areas... "John Smith said, in Some Book He Wrote, page 778, that...", or "Jack Johnson said in an interview, 58 minutes in, that..." Even the shortened version, "SomeBook, p667" is more clutter than we need, and really just amounts to sourcing the statement. If all we're doing is sourcing it, then we should put it in a ref or note instead. With articles on a religious subject, we commonly see editors who want to strew bible verses all throughout the text. For example, take a look at an article I'm dealing with now, Balak (parsha). I can't tell you how many I've cleaned up like that. This is something we should strive to avoid. Does that make sense?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect sense. - Jasonasosa (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jess, interesting how these issues play together, isn't it? To take the second paragraph in that article under "In classical rabbinic interpretation," I would have started the second sentence, "The Mishnah in Sanhedrin taught that Balaam ...," and put the exact page citation in a footnote, rather than in-line.
 * On the other hand, because the scope of the article is a limited piece of the Book of Numbers, I think keeping the chapter and verse citation one is talking about in-line makes sense. What I wouldn't do is use the whole Bibleverse template; I'd use the abbreviated version, as in:  "... the Gemara read the allusion to Balaam’s father in  to demonstrate ..." It's a much cleaner approach. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Parsha Articles
Just curious: Why do you favor Anshe Emes Synagogue, Los Angeles, and Bar-Ilan University over other universities or synagogues? -- Dauster (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dauster. I don't favor them. We just need to limit the external links to only a few that meet WP:EL. I chose them because they appeared to be most likely to cover the topic specifically. If you think other links serve that purpose better, please feel free to replace the ones I left with better ones. Please just make sure to keep it down to ones that serve a unique purpose, and limit it to as few as possible. There were something like 50 before. We should keep it to something more like 3.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you like three, I might suggest leaving in future edits a sampling of the three major divisions of Judaism -- the Orthodox Union, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Of course that would leave other significant movements (for example Chabad and Reconstructionism) and universities generally unrepresented. -- Dauster (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
Hi! Just a quick note - most people aren't aware of this, it seems, but when copying between the attribution requirements of the license require that we state where the material was copied from. Normally we can get away with just mentioning this in the edit summary, but for larger amounts of text Template:Copied can be handy. :) I've fixed the attribution for Catholic abuse cases, but if you're interested in the details you might want to have a quick scan of Copying within Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Actually, I did know that, but I copy from within wikipedia so infrequently I'm not in the habit of mentioning it. It occurred to me literally minutes after I'd made the edits, but then I couldn't go back and correct my edit summaries. I didn't know about the copied template. I'll try to be better about this in the future, including making use of that template on the talk page. Thanks for the friendly note! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No hassles. It is a suprisingly obscure policy - I see a lot of admins who don't know it exists at all. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Snootcher - a theory
Hi Jess - I just caught up with this Snootcher card while taking an idle look at Talk:Evolution as fact and theory (having not being around much the past few weeks and its a page I like to check out sometimes just to see what's going down). Anyway, having read his contribs there, on his talk page and the ANI, I got to say that both Snootcher's motivation and somewhat er singular manner is IMO reminiscent of a familiar figure in the Creationism/ID/right-wing Wiki world. Someone who has: a strong interest in the subject, the same particular set of views on the subject and is devoted to having those views disseminated and accepted. In presentation the similarities continue: a superficial and somewhat glib erudition, the querulous tones of the misunderstood truth-martyr, the constant accusations and complaints of rudeness, and especially the towering levels of IDHT and where a direct question is never answered but instead is met with a gish gallop of repetition. Oh, and has an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia for an apparent noob. All of which is depressingly familiar to many who have watched the Creationist clownfest over the years and which can all be compared to inter alia the archives of threads on this bloke's own site as well as many other forums. But what really caught my eye, though, was this: ...my schools? Its this bloke. No way of knowing, I guess but It'd be f*7^$"g hilarious if it was! All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you could start an SPI, but I suspect you'd need harder evidence than just a hunch. Keep in mind, a lot of people are creationists (upwards of 40% of the US, by some estimates), so we should expect these sorts of comments from time to time. If Snootcher is indefinitely blocked, and not returning with socks, then the problem is settled, and I think we should just leave it at that. That's just my opinion; feel free to proceed however you see fit.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Jess, I never had any intention of taking this up at SPI or anywhere else :) Nothing on earth would induce me to directly engage with anyone carrying on like this (and all kudos for you for your exemplary patience back there - I could not have done it) and really, its an observation and also just a very little tongue-in-cheek. There is good evidence that certain creationist educators offer credits to students for going on forums and blogs to "initiate debate" (and provide templates tactics etc for them to utilize) and this could be what happened here, but there's no way of knowing, they're gone, and good riddance! Plutonium27 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Articles for Deletion
After you are done battling the parshas, you can propose Islamic view of Noah for deletion so that you are consistent in your efforts to squelch POV forking. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to send it to AfD if you'd like. I think the result would be similar (but it would probably have less attention). Before you do that, I'd point out that Islamic view of Noah has noticeably fewer issues than the Parshas. For one thing, it actually has sources. I think your time would be better spent trying to fix up some of the issues on that article, and on the Parshas, than sending either back to AfD. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you explain pages like this? Genesis 1:2 (Was already nominated for AfD) What benefit do we get out of this? How would we improve an article like that? Whose POV do we use? Don't you think having a page like this is counter to what User:Masem (Whom I've been following very closely) says on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  03:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think articles like that belong here. For the record, it doesn't appear to have been nominated for AfD. It was nominated for VfD (when we had that) back in 2005. It doesn't look like much discussion took place on the merits of the article at that time, just a lot of voting. A lot can change in 7 years... It might be due for another discussion. I don't imagine it would survive an AfD nom. I don't know that I want to nominate it myself, however.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Allow me the honors then... there are more of these too! &mdash;  Jasonasosa  03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, the articles may need to be deleted, but they don't qualify for CSD A1. CSD nominations have to be precise. If an article doesn't meet the criteria exactly, then the nomination will be declined. A1 is specifically for articles without any context to define it as a topic. These articles suffer from the opposite problem - they're too narrowly defined. I declined the CSD noms, and changed it to a PROD instead. PROD is more general (if no one contests it, the article gets deleted without any discussion necessary). In the case of Genesis 1:2, the previous VfD in 2005 makes it unsuitable for a PROD, so we have to go back to AfD to handle that one. I've nominated it with a basic rationale. Feel free to contribute your own rationale to that discussion if you'd like (it was you who identified the problem, after all!)
 * I was trying to avoid doing these myself, since I don't want to stir up bad faith among the editors already engaged with me elsewhere, such as on the Parshas. However, I also didn't want it to seem like I was telling you to "go ahead and delete them" and then reverting all your efforts to do that, either. I hope that helps explain things. If you want more context, see WP:CSD and WP:PROD, or ask and I'd be happy to clarify further. Thanks for noticing these and working to correct them, Jason. I appreciate your hard work. :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know... I selected the wrong one... it was supposed to be ((db-transwiki)); I got verification from User:Masem. Except now... I think they've been processed as is and I can't go back. Worst case, if they don't get deleted then I'm going to redirect them like Genesis 1:6. Thanks for looking into this.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  04:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see! They might apply for A5, but it's iffy. For instance, Genesis 1:5 has this line in the lead "In ancient times, naming something or somewhere was a sign of power and importance; therefore, both day and night belong to God." That's content outside the source text, which technically places it outside of A5's jurisdiction. Typically, CSDs are crazy strict. I think prod is better in this case (there's no rush anyway), but that's just my opinion. IAR is a pillar, after all, so I could be wrong. Anyway, I guess we'll see what happens and go from there. Thanks again!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts;
 * ;)  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  04:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What say you about Genesis 1:1 ?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  21:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know. I think the entire article, as written, is a big problem. No inline sources, a lot of apparent OR, a lot of unnecessary detail (like differences between the vocalized and unvocalized Masoretic text). However, I think it's very likely that there exists a broad range of commentary on Genesis 1:1 (that we're not including), and I think it's possible something new could be fleshed out for it which would be hard to combine in other articles. My contention with the Parshas was that we only needed one (or a few) articles to sum up the whole thing... but I don't know that we can do that here. It might be too specific for Book of Genesis, for example, so where else would it go? Really, I'm divided, and I'd be open to convincing either way. The article does need a ton of work, though.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you noticed, the POV is largely Judaism, which is already covered in the parsha: Bereishit (parsha). So it's really duplicate material, at least the way I see it. However, there might be some secular points that could be pulled out and put in the Genesis creation narrative, thus the merge I posted.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had to revert Genesis 1:4. Please review. Thanks, &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly
Sadly, NOT A FORUM states clearly that we cannot talk about something not adding in the article, so I would say the three rule revert refers to the article itself, not the talk inside the article. as...well you are not allowed to discuss or allow talks about when others are trying to censor ones post or not=) do you have anything to add to it the anti-non semitism that the jewwatch article should have or not? I supose it is kinda pov since the article is very negative about it, but it can correct the article by saying that just like the CAMERA organisations work on wikipedia with it trying to control a media outlet, it hasnt anything to do with their religion but rather because of corruption among jews to try to control a media. since if non-semites can control and lobby/bribe someone to control a media to push something(iraq war for oil)then of course semites can do=)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.3.117 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2012
Hi, please answer the edit request @ Talk:Jat_people — 117.200.59.19 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not restore vandalism or unconstructive comments that has nothing to do with said article
Talk pages are meant to discuss things to put into the article. as nothing unconstructive about said comment had nothing to do with adding or removing something in the article, means that its not something to be kept as you did at Talk:Jew Watch. reverting back comments that are vandalism or unconstructive is not acording to Wikipedia - Unconstructive Edits rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by WitsBlomstein (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:VAND (specifically WP:NOTVAND); that content was a legitimate contribution to the talk page, not vandalism. Also read WP:TPG; removing others legitimate comments to a talk page is not allowed. Your own comments are wildly out of line, per WP:NOTFORUM / WP:SOAP. Please take a breather, then ask at the Help desk, or see about getting a mentor.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of atheism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Wright (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) 12:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jew Watch
Bearaaw is a blocked sock of, would you like to remove his posts and your replies? Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, I noticed. I have no problem with that either way. I considered doing it earlier, but since User:Cajokie was also involved (he has not been blocked, but made similar arguments), I thought it might be best to leave the conversation so we weren't forced to repeat things later. That said, I don't mind either way, so I'll defer to your judgement and remove his posts as per normal convention. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Karavan
I was informed by you, "jess", that I have vandalised a page called "Karavan". I was just simply updating some simple true facts about the band. If you weren't recently informed, the band has basically split up and reqrouped with new American based names. Please revise my edits and keep them. <3 Thanks! Sincerely, Emotionally damaged by your message :'( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenface15 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I trust you're talking about this edit. Wikipedia is a serious project, so please do not insert jokes into articles. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. Repeatedly doing it often results in sanctions, which is really no good for anyone.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello
my name is chaima and this is my first time on WiKipedia and i found your page and i'll love too stay with u on touch i'll be so hoppy if u responed P.S: i'm from Algeria if heard about it take care --Silla mitcho (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) chaima --Silla mitcho (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Silla mitcho (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) بالسلامة و الأمان Silla mitcho (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Welcome to wikipedia. If you have any questions about editing, feel free to ask. Everyone is welcome to contribute, here, so pick an article you like and dive in and make changes :) All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jessica Ahlquist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanist (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) 15:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Flood Geology
Hey, Mann jess: just wondering why you removed my edits on the Flood Geology page. I tried to make the statements in the article match the sources someone else had already provided. Two articles from one source do not establish anything close to a "scientific consensus." There may in fact be a scientific consensus, but the sources given don't show that. So, not trying to be controversial here. Just making the page seem less ridiculous.

UrbsDei21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.160.162 (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi 76.178. Thanks for your contributions. The best place to discuss content issues is usually the article talk page. In this case, that would be here. I'll answer your question here for now, but if you have any additional questions, that would be the best place to discuss them. The statement that "flood geology is a pseudoscience" is well supported within scientific literature. The relevant policies for this issue are WP:V and WP:DUE. For WP:V, we only need one source which verifies the statement; both sources we list do that My introduction to skepticism was a fascination with a particular pseudoscience, “creation science” (he then goes on later to discuss 'flood geology' as a subset of creation science). the best way to demonstrate that creationism is pseudoscience is to show just how well-trained creationist minds are.... Therefore, to demonstrate that creationists are pseudoscientists, one need only carry some creationist hypotheses about Noah's flood to their logical conclusions. The following six arguments will do just that, giving a sampling of the major difficulties in creationist "flood geology." The Creation Evolution Journal is a reliable source on the topic of evolution and creationism, and so meets WP:V for verifying the content. Our second policy, WP:DUE, indicates that we provide due weight to ideas with respect to their prominence in the literature. In this case, that flood geology is a pseudoscience is very well supported in the literature, (universally so in academic, scientific journals), and the idea that it is a "real science" (or something else) is only represented in fringe journals and creationist literature. Therefore, "due weight" compels us to list it as a pseudoscience. Again, if you have any questions or concerns about this, the best place to discuss them would be the article talk page, where many editors can get involved. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forrest Griffin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TKO (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) 11:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingston High School (Hull)
I have removed the delete request from this as the school is correctly located. UK schools use comma dab rather than bracket dab. Thus Kingston High School, Hull is the correct location for the article. Keith D (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. That seems strange to me given the other school names, but oh well... it's no big deal. Thanks for the message :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

jess, i left a msg for you on my talk page
didnt now how to let you know that. didnt want to mess up your nice and neat talk page so you can delete this after you read it. thanks! Blast&#38;gas (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)