User talk:Mann jess/Archive 5

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

A thank you note
As StevenJ81 has said, even when you are talking with someone you disagree with, you still are polite and respectful. Thank you for teaching me some of the basics of Wikipedia. The Sackinator (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sackinator. There's a lot of drama here (as you have probably gathered), and it's always nice to hear something positive from an editor I've worked with. If you need any more help or have other questions, you're always welcome on my talk. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Catholic abuse cases
Hi Mann jess I have proposed a merger of the article you created, Catholic abuse cases into a much more comprehensive article with which it has a high degree of overlap. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice! I've been on vacation, but I contributed to the talk page. I appreciate your input :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit waring ?
Thanks. I saw your note in the talk page you left about my "vandalism". I was wondering though : why did you say I was edit warring? - I tagged the article, I gave my reasons in the talk page, and someone reverted the tag writing it was vandalism. He or she never participated in the discussion I started; his or her single role was to revert the tag. Who is wrong here? I justified my edits, started a discussion and someone reverted twice without participating in the discussion just calling me a vandal then someone else ( you ) said I was edit warring. Keep in mind that no one else was editing at that time. You also suggested that the previous user should leave me a note for editing waring while s'he was actually was edit waring (with no participation and using inappropriate labels.) Can you explain why? Best,

--Motorola12 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Motorola. I'd be happy to answer. Basically, edit warring happens any time an editor repeatedly undoes the changes of other editors. This happens irrespective of discussion, or the content of the changes, or anything else. For instance, if John makes a change to an article, and Jill reverts that change, then John restores it and Jill reverts it again, they are both edit warring. Both of them have an obligation to go to the talk page and discuss the issue, and in the meantime, both editors should stop reverting each other while they talk it over. WP:BRD plays a part in edit warring a lot, and it's a generally good principle to follow; if a change you've made is reverted, then you should open discussion on the talk page first... you should not restore your change to the article before there is consensus on the talk page to do so. Many editors (myself included) give the reverting editor slightly more leeway when it comes to edit warring, because the onus is on the person originally changing the article to establish consensus for his change. There's also some leeway given to either editor in certain cases, such as violations of WP:BLP, or if one editor is being really combative, or if an editor has tried to collaborate on the talk page already, etc. It can sometimes be subjective, so it's best not to engage in it at all; edit warring is never looked upon favorably, for anyone involved. You should lean on the talk page heavily, and not revert while discussion is ongoing. Does that help explain things? You should skim WP:EW when you have a chance too, since there's a pretty good explanation there as well. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. thanks for taking the time to explain. there is no big deal but I would comprehend better your reasons if the other editor had written something meaningful in the talk page  and did not use the term vandalism to describe my edits. But it seems that s/he was just "casting a vote" without having anything to say about the article and the subject which seems to be the case for many "participants"  in the  homeopathy  article in wikipedia - it is generally cool to be anti-homeopathy without having the remotest idea what you are you talking about - and yo refuse to yourself the time to be informed responsibly. One must have the ability to explain in his own words why s/he supports or not a consensus - speaking of which looks very artificial: several editors have expressed their disagreements.   Best regards--Motorola12 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to participate in the discussion homeopathy talk page and answer to your argument? or not? --Motorola12 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course! Why wouldn't you be? Just try to engage collaboratively and try to avoid repeating yourself. You're probably worried about the discretionary sanctions notice left on your talk page, right? A good rule of thumb is to avoid behaviors listed in WP:TE (in fact, keep far away from them), and if you find yourself at an impasse, then ask an uninvolved editor (and take their advice!), or seek dispute resolution. Does that make sense? As long as you follow that advice, you should be fine. The only other thing to note is that once you've seen consensus form on an issue, it's time to give that issue up and move on to something else. There's plenty of stuff to fix and do here. So much, in fact, that it's usually crazy to get caught up on one change.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have asked 3 times if I can reply to to what you said in the homeopathy page but your last comment in my tal;k page was confusing to me. If I refer to  your argument I could be accused for repeating myself ?  I m assuming that I have your permission as admin to reply and I will do- If I misunderstood let me know please.   --Motorola12 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't need the permission of an admin. The three users you've been speaking with primarily are established users who've been around this block before. Incidentally, I think one user who's given you this advice is an admin, but that's not really relevant. You can always comment on an article talk page, unless you're explicitly sanctioned not to do so by the community (see WP:TBAN; that doesn't apply to you). Editors are not warning you to stay off the page. Editors are warning you to work collaboratively and not repeat the same points over and over again without listening. Just be sure not to do that, and you'll be fine.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

homeopathy edits
Jess, the reason i edited the page as i did is bc wikipedia IS completely controlled by the powers that be and they will not allow information that goes against them on their pages. e.g. i had an incredible healing experience with homeopathy after horrible experiences with western doctors. i wanted to help others, so i posted useful things about my experiences, always couching them with statements such as "anecdotal evidence suggests," or the like. i also included many factual statements such that it has been around in India for thousands of years. i backed everythign up with a study, or with factual evidence, or with history, or with my own personal experiences, and everything was always deleted. they broke their own rules and the moderator essentially vandalized his own page. that's why i wrote what i wrote. is this something that you support ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.135.228 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi 24.177.135.228. We have very specific content policies here, which determine how we analyze sources, how we weight them against each other, and consequently what content is appropriate to be placed in articles and how. Personal experience, for example, is not a source we can allow to influence our content in any way. Wikipedia is not like many other mediums, such as books, or blogs, or research, or journalism. Each has their own standard, and so do we. I'm not familiar with your work on the homeopathy article, but if you're having trouble getting content included when working with experienced editors, there is probably a reason based on those content policies we have to follow. We do have biases on wikipedia, most notably toward the scientific consensus. That's intentional. If you're looking to compare data and do your own research, then wikipedia isn't the right place to do so. You should look into setting up a website (or blog) of your own, or working on another wiki with different policies, or writing a paper for submission to a journal, or publishing a book of your own. In any case, regardless of how previous discussions have gone, it is never appropriate to put the type of content you just did into an article. Please don't do that. If you have a dispute, see WP:DR. I hope that helps.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Medievia
Hi. You wrote the following line: "it has been expanded substantially, and that it is now a 64-bit application.". I ran a search for "64-bit" in your source (http://www.stanford.edu/group/htgg/cgi-bin/drupal/sites/default/files2/lmzen_2003_1.pdf) and didn't find anything. This source appears to be invalid. However, if I'm wrong, please mention the page number so that the information is easier to find. Thank you.EternalFlare (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When I discovered the article today, I just combined the information I found into one paragraph. All the bits that I combined were "sourced", but some of the sources weren't very good (for example linking to forum posts and the like), and I thew those out. That all happened today, so up until now, those statements were verifiable. If there are contentious statements which now need a source, then those parts should be tagged, and someone should try to one down. The pdf I provided goes over the history of the medievia issue in detail, including various responses that the owner has given to the mess, so it should verify many of his other claims, if not the 64-bit issue. If you have trouble finding it, let me know.   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atheist's Wager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Martin (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) 11:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GodWars
Hi Mann jess, I'd appreciate you taking another look at the GodWars article, due to a conflict of interest. In particular, the recently removed "History of God Wars" link would have covered the needed citations and much of the deleted content as per WP:ABOUTSELF. KaVir (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi KaVir. I was actually away yesterday, but sure, I'll take a look.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 12:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been improved quite a bit yesterday, but a fresh set of eyes certainly can't hurt. KaVir (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything seems to be ok now. I made a few changes, but could only find minor adjustments. New sources would allow us to add new content, but I've had trouble finding too many. Your site might be good for that, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Just be careful about the language.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In the beginning ...
You and I have disagreed on content and perspective on a couple of occasions now, but you are unfailingly polite and respectful, and you listen to (and respond to) the questions asked. I really appreciate that.

Just FWIW, I sometimes find myself betwixt and between, and that's not the easiest spot to be in. I'm not a Fundamentalist, Christian or Jew; just because I accept the authority of the Bible (as an Orthodox Jew) does not mean that I think everything in it is to be taken literally. (Support from many classical commentators for that.) Do keep that in mind when you read my comments (and I think you already do).

In parallel to the discussions here, I've recently had a brief colloquy around Hebrew calendar and my insisting on use of BCE/CE there instead of BC/AD. In that case, BCE/CE is certainly more religiously neutral, especially in a Judaism-related article, but my interlocutor is quoting WP:ERA against that perspective. That's not a request from me for assistance/intervention there, just an illustration of how different things in different parts of Wikipedia end up not working in entirely consistent directions.

I'm about to ask you another question over there, but wanted to say "thank you" first. [PS: No need to TB; I'm watching.] StevenJ81 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven. Thank you for the kind message. I could of course say the same for you; it's been a pleasure disagreeing with you ;) I've been a bit tied up today and haven't really been to my normal wikipedia routine, but if you've asked a question on the talk page, I'll get to it as soon as I have the chance. Anyway, thanks again for the message; these are always encouraging, and provide extra incentive to collaborating better. Talk to you soon!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I'm unwatching this one. I'm tired of it.  Hans Adler was polite, no argument.  But at the end of the day, the argument is about whether academic usage supersedes common usage.  For titles, I'm kind of on the side of common use, but the answer is far from clear-cut, and will differ from article to article.  Ultimately, all these names will exist with redirects anyway, so it's not as if they are disappearing from the planet.
 * I'm starting to get a sense that arguments over article titles are some of the biggest time sinks that exist here, and to the least productive end. For example, there's one going on somewhere around here as to whether US place articles should include the state in the article title.  The amount of ink that's been spilled on that, so to speak, is ridiculous.
 * I'm thinking about writing an essay on it (probably not until after Passover). I'll show you in draft.  I think the single biggest problem, when dealing with NPOV and other fair balance issues, is that with titles, there's just one shot, no second chance to balance.  In body text, there is always an opportunity for different opinions or nuances.  Here, there's not, so there is every incentive to keep arguing about it, and not much motivation or incentive to compromise.  But everyone spending time on that should (if you will) spend that time editing articles.
 * And that's what I'm going to do—head back to my sandbox. See you around town next time.  StevenJ81 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The RM should not have been started so soon. This is a perennial discussion, and unlikely to forseeably end. Your decision to back out is probably the right one. Never get sucked into big discussions when it isn't fun, or you'll burn out. I learned that first on the Atheism page, where the content isn't even the issue... it's the ordering of the content... and man those discussions got long. There's another one on Star Trek into Darkness right now which is huge, debating whether "into" should be capitalized. My approach is !vote, explain, discuss, and then move on. If there's other stuff going on, or other articles in need of attention, that takes priority. I do this intermittently in-between work, though, so it's easier for me to not get entangled. FWIW, that discussion will end "no consensus" and the current title will stay. Anyway, good luck. It was nice meeting you, and I'm sure we'll bump into each other again.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic mythology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (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) 11:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Cryptozoologists"
I was lead to Karl Shuker by the picture on Cryptozoology, which I thought was rather odd to have someone singled out like that on there, mainly I wanted to check the copyright on it since it appeared to be a studio image, in which I've put in a request at Commons to have the OTRS ticket reviewed to see if it includes the release from the studio (Image copyright is sorta one of the things I'm always looking out for, lol.). Anyway, his page seemed rather, strongly pro cryptozoology, which is pretty much bunk science. So I put some tags on the article since it's sourcing is very poor and one-sided, and commented on the talk page. Lo and behold, Mr. Shuker himself lords over the article and chimed in to state his opinion on my comment about it being a doggy science and needing some other views on it. I'm asking your help since you edit on Cryptozoology, to review some of these "zoologists" pages to review them for, (a) WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc.. and (c) if they even meet WP:N which I'm not sure based on the sourcing that Karl does. Here's a list mr Shuker provided of other cryptozoologists that didn't have any criticism of their work/views on their page. Loren Coleman, Jonathan Downes, Roy Mackal, Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist), and Bernard Heuvelmans, along with Karl's page. The way he responded to my comment, and the clear WP:COI of his edits to the page, makes me want to make it a personal mission to address the WP:NPOV violations on his page. First I think we'll try a round at WP:DR since his WP:N is highly suspect. — raeky  t  02:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Raeky. Thanks for the note. That does, indeed, sound important to look into. I've been pretty tied up in the last 2 days with Vday and work (as you can probably tell from my lack of contribs), but I'll try to look into it as soon as I have the chance. I'm glad you noticed the problem!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY POSTS IN TALK SESSION
I do try to improve the article, by linking to videos where the people the propagandist using as source in the moon hoax article - gets caught as proven liars. I dont care if they dont wanna watch the videos, this dont give you the right to censor my posts! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum. The talk pages are for discussing specific changes to the article, backed up by reliable sources. You started 3 sections in 3 days, all of which revolve around debating the article subject. You've also made it a habit to insult other editors in the process. Please stop.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont care what you saying, because i do infact improve the article by showing that the ppl the propagandists are using as a source in the article is nothing else than proven liars, how many times must i repeat this fact? never close my topics again, for every time you do so i will open it again. Dictatorship is the wrong way! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Edit warring will get you blocked. You need to work collaboratively with other editors on the site.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

tell someone who cares? i dont tolerate threats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Kingston High School, Hull
Hi, not sure what was going on here but we appear to have been both trying to fix up this one at the same time. The page was at the correct title before it was moved as UK schools use comma as the delimiter and not brackets. I have restore it to the comma version after a few attempts. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, I caught that. I had hoped to find consistency within Kingston High School (where hull is the only one with a comma), but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time discussing naming conventions and commas vs parens, so whatever it is now is fine. Thanks for correcting the mixed up move, in any case.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

baptism
Hey, I don't appreciate the pedantry. I gave the source (Luther's Small Catechism), any idiot can look up what it says in that small book in the section on baptism and see I gave a VERBATIM quote. If you wanted a citation added, why not add it yourself Mr Wiki-expert, instead of deleting FACTS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.93.55 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you're talking about this edit. No source was provided in that edit; you added new text without a new reference. What source says that Martin Luther "clearly" held to Baptismal regeneration. In addition, there are issues with your wording which would need to be addressed before we added information like that. We can't end a well sourced paragraph with text like "However.... Clearly..." in wikipedia's voice. The next step is to take your concerns about the paragraph to the article talk page, which you can find at the top left of the article. I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you further there. Please don't edit war. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong
Im not "Vandalizing", I'm simply adding a much needed spice to this lowlife, already untreatable realm of binary numbers we call Wikipedia. Who put you in charge? Oh my mistake, NOBODY. The internet is a place to roam free for all without restriction of addition and speech. Chubylord (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. This message came after I reported him to ARV. He got blocked immediately after. I figured it wasn't worth responding to.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of shit i got blocked when i tried to improve the moon hoax article which contains 90% personaly opinions and misleading bullshit, besides that many of my posts in the talk session(!) is censored and the article itself is protected by admins (edit = ban) 91.145.38.53 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're in danger of being blocked now because you are not adhering to WP:AGF and WP:NOTFORUM. It has nothing to do with your ideas, or censorship, or some administrative cabal. There are perfectly collaborative ways of engaging editors with whom you disagree regarding article improvement, and you need to look at how other editors do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

you mean by misleading the viewers in both the talk session as well in the article? yes i maybe gonna do that too! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What was that WP:T... rule?
You reverted me the other day on Agnosticism - no problem, I now think you were almost certainly right. It's possibly unimportant, but I was just wondering what was the (Tutorial, which particular part did you have in mind?):  Reverted 1 edit by Tlhslobus (talk): Agnosticism is multiple things. We enumerate those based on their weight. However, a parenthetical list like this doesn't improve the article, IMO. (Tlhslobus (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. Yea, edit summaries get cut off sometimes. They are limited to a certain number of characters, and I wrote mine too big, it would appear. That link was probably going to go to WP:TWINKLE (which is automatically filled in by twinkle whenever I use their tools to perform an undo). It wasn't intended to be a part of my summary. Anyway, I hope that's all clear now. Thanks for the message :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * np. :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for page on Rabindranath Tagore
Hi Jess, I have made an edit request for the page on Rabindranath Tagore at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore#Translated. The edit request is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rabindranath_Tagore#Tagore.27s_first_work_in_prose_translated_into_English_and_now_available_for_free_should_be_added_to_list_of_translations_with_hyperlink Please take a look at my request and let me know your decision. Webmaestro365 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Your recent editing history at Christianity and homosexuality shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.-Eris Lover (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

With Reference to "Tagore's first work in prose is translated into English" dated 02 Apr 2012
Hi Jess, Please take a look at the archived item at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rabindranath_Tagore/Archive_2#Tagore.27s_first_work_in_prose_is_translated_into_English titled "Tagore's first work in prose is translated into English". I had recently modified the archived post for your attention. However my edit was deleted by another user because it is an archive. So I am making my detailed request on your UserTalk page directly. The original post was about the possibility of listing the English translation of Rabindranath Tagore's Letters from an Expatriate in Europe with the translations of his other works at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore#Translated. You had said, "Not done: This is a link to a store where you can purchase the ebook. We don't typically link to such sites. See WP:EL for our policies concerning external links. If you are aware of a free site to view the work, we can certainly add that. Thanks!" As it happens I am now aware of a free site to view/download the work in multiple formats. The original web page in question http://smashwords.com/b/147753 has now done away with the price tag and anyone can download the book without even opening an account. Please therefore keep your promise by including "Letters from an Expatriate in Europe"  translated in 2012 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore#Translated. Thanks and regards, ~ Webmaestro365 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Eris Lover
I've had a little discussion with Eris Lover about using the talk page, and he has started a discussion there. I think this guy can be a contructive editor, but just needs some time and patience to figure out the ropes here. I put in a kind word about you, and hope that you are successful in explaining to him your objections t his edits. By the way, he sorta has a point. "Tradition", like "nature" and "chemicals", is a word that is skunked and emotive. There must be a way to get the meaning across without using evocative language. Thanks a lot and best of luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking to him and taking care of things. I've been out of town, and haven't been on WP at all the past few weeks. Come to think of it, this has been the first time away for more than a few days since I started editing :P Anyway, thanks again for stepping in.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter
Mann jess: I'm rusty at making wiki edits ... and especially use of "Talk". I did attempt to explain my intentions on the article related to YEC, and hope I wasn't argumentative and/or defensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mann jess: I came across this phrase on your talk page: "Tradition", like "nature" and "chemicals", is a word that is skunked and emotive. There must be a way to get the meaning across without using evocative language.

To me, the use of "myth" would also be "skunked and emotive". Try discussing the "Mohammed myth" with a Moslem, and see how that goes, for example. The "Cultural Evolutionist" who first used that word in the article may be thinking in terms of "myth" being a "believe that is a part of the culture, with little or no inference on whether it is true or not".

Or "the wiki myth" that forms a core part of the "wiki culture" ... allow as many people as possible to do as much as possible to expand access to knowledge. My understanding is that a "Cultural Evolutionist" would consider the use of "myth" as appropriate. et tu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No Subject
Can you please reply to the post I wrote on my talk page; I think it's relevant to the thread in question.

Militant Atheism Redirect
I appreciate that there may be a consensus to redirect Militant Atheism to the League of Militant Atheists, however there is no logical reason for this redirect. It doesn't make anymore sense than redirecting Christianity to a specific Roman Catholic order. The redirected page is far too specific, and frankly irrelevant to what Militant atheism actually is. So I changed it, again. It should not redirect there, and I will oppose a redirect as long as I have to to have that page redirected appropriately. As I suggested, maybe make a disambiguation page offering several links as options. Until then, I will keep changing the redirect. It misrepresents new atheists, and it's frankly disgusting that Wikipedia editors would accept that simply because there's a "consensus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagoy (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Lagoy. Welcome to wikipedia. There's been a lot of discussion over this. You should read the response you got on the talkpage from another editor. The Militant Atheism article has a long history of being misused by certain religious editors to attack atheism. The article previously claimed that New Atheists were trying to censor and possibly even harm religious believers by associating them with historical atrocities. I don't think it would be appropriate to link the term to New Atheism for that reason, and because the two terms are really distinct. "Militant Atheism" is, at best, a disparaging term for outspoken atheists, and is rarely (if ever) used to self describe. The one time it seems to have been used commonly is with respect to the League of Militant Atheists, which is the reason for the redirect. In any case, please don't edit war, as you've indicated you might. That won't help, and if you do, it will just end up getting you blocked; it's no good for anyone. Talk it out on the article talk page. Let me know if you need any other help. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Creationism considered in Wikipedia
Hello Jess, I remembered your previous patience toward answering my questions and hoped you would have the time to answer another question: I know of books written by scientists who own PH.D's. May books as these work or not? Thank you in advance, The Sackinator (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Acunpuncture isnt 'pseudoscience'
It cant really be treated as such, since studies have shown it to be effective treatment against nausea and many forms of pain, such as artritis. if you are skeptical concerning this, check the wiki article on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.217.168 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the article. We have sources describing it as such, and our job on wikipedia is only to report what the sources say. I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you. The place to do that is on the article talk page. You can find that by clicking "Talk" at the top left of the article. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is still a controversial medical practice. There are sources (both eastern and western) saying it is efficient, while others say it is not. Since the opinion of science is still divided. I think we can leave it out f the pseudoscience realm till more defynitive data is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.180.164 (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up
Hi Jess, do you mind to take a look of the article Stephen Meyer at your convenience? The issue I have with an edit by an unregistered IP user is summed up in the Talk page I entered today. Thank you. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes to "Closer to Truth"
Regarding the reversal made to this entry:

- No refs in section titles - understandable, will remove - No long list of name - understood, will revise - Removal of ELs / categories - all external links, save for one (the one to closertotruth.com) point to outdated / defunct content; the categories weren't removed, rather I enhanced them by adding two additional categories

The page itself was full of self promotion and fluff. Hence, why I started editing it anyways. Changes listed above made and reverted to new version. Thank you for the heads up.

Endlessct9a (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Endlessct9a. Thanks for taking care of those issues. That article isn't high priority on my watchlist, but I'll try to take another look at some point. Let me know if you need any help. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hanh ?
Jess, don't know which/what you're speaking of with the mention edit warring left on my talk page. I can only offer that while some edits get replaced over time, others on more active pages got replaced faster, and for any contentious page the WP:BRD simply does not work and any content is not a consensus so much as flavor of the day and a rugby scrum. Wikipedia has a list of contentious pages but you can also tell by the history having thousands of changes and the Talk having many posts, some very lengthy and replies going many levels deep to the point it's more a blog than sectioned topic discussions. Wikipedia seems to have ironic humor about it, judging from the classical art they posted to illustrate the editor as the Sabine woman between two armies and what the next painting in that series is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Jess, let me be a bit more clear -- I have no idea which page you keep pasting to my talk page about, nor do I see a specific to-do in your post -- so there is just no way to make use of it. I'm not retaining things on my talk page so this went. If you have something specific, correct, and useful for me that I could actually go anywhere with, I will be open to at least look at it, and less than that it's likely just not worth your time. Some pages I've been at are deemed contentious by wikipedia and even posted there that the generic guidances are not in effect. I have seen others that seem factually contentious but are not marked as such at this time. My view as I said is that any content for some pages seems not a consensus so much as flavor of the day and a rugby scrum. That would include lots of things like these casual mentions of 'edit warring' or of WP:something by many parties with not much behind it. If you don't like the tone of my feelings or think they are stupid is fine; if you can improve on something I posted would be wonderful; that I do not get to have feelings or am not allowed to view that BRD is not working there is not fine. I do appreciate mention of village pump, and they do have a 3RR discussion ongoing that I'll put a couple cents wager into. Maybe that's all you wanted or can hope for. Markbassett (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark, you asked for specifics. These edits are edit warring. So are these on a different article:, , . Please don't do that in the future.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bigfoot edit war
Thanks for the note on my page. Does the rule also apply to everybody else who reverted my edits, or just to me?:)

Regards, Petwil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petwil (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously the rules apply to everyone equally, including to you. You need to work collaboratively with other editors. Please read WP:EW and stop edit warring.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

You seem to be the authority
On the atheist page, it doesn't mention anything about what triggered our current cosmological model (the 'big bang') - therefore, atheism should be listed among the belief systems - e.g. religion.

Please add this to the counterarguments section (because you've 'shunned' me into not editing the page, further). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan81 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is a growing dissent for Wikipedia that this topic isn't helping: Dissent Furthermore, the atheist discussion is being debated elsewhere - further removing credibility for what was once a very democratic Wikipedia. Xan81 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your message is being distributed - thug activity like this, soviet-style communism won't be received well.

As I said, this erodes Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan81 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Atheism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  19:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Naturopathy
Hi Mann jess, As a naturopathic medical student at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in Tempe, AZ I have unique knowledge on the subject matter. Our curriculum is based on science and biomedicine. The claim otherwise is false and misleading about our profession. Please see the definition of Naturopathic Medicine on the AANP's website for a further explanation about or practice. http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?pl=16&sl=60&contentid=60 Erik.o.nelson (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Erik


 * Hi Erik. Thanks for your message. The article talk page (Talk:Naturopathy) is the best place to have a discussion about the article's content. In short, on wikipedia we have to go by sources, and we have a large number which discuss naturopathy as a profession that is very commonly (note: not exclusively) in opposition to the medical and scientific community. We would need additional sources which provided different insight into naturopathy before we would be able to change the article. If you know of such sources (which discuss naturopathy's integration and acceptance within the scientific and medical community), we can certainly discuss them on the article talk page. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Iao Valley
Hi. Thanks for uploading your images. I think there must have been confusion over at Iao Valley which I have temporarily remedied. The architecture appears to be the entrance to the Korean gardens. Also, I've blanked the "Japanese Heritage Gardens" category from commons because most of these images were erroneously categorized as Japanese when they were not. You are welcome to create a new category appropriately titled "Kepaniwai Heritage Gardens Park" under the Iao Valley category, where all of these images would conceivably reside. The point of this category is inclusive just like the gardens, which celebrates the contributions of all immigrants to Hawaii, including Native Hawaiians (since they came here by boat), as well as those from New England, China, Japan, the Azores, Korea, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. There are of course, many more, including those from Vietnam. The gardens as a whole are intended to celebrate their contributions as a single tapestry, not segregated into different categories. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI...I've proposed moving the files to new names here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Viriditas. Thanks for the notice! I just used names I found in sources (and our articles). It seems its referred to as the "Japanese Heritage Gardens" pretty often, but I'm not really invested in the topic so I don't have any stake in it. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for uploading your images. The term "Japanese Heritage Gardens" was probably spread by a single person by mistake.  The location is known as Kepaniwai Park and Heritage Gardens, but is more commonly referred to in the vernacular as "Kepaniwai Heritage Gardens", particularly by the state and county.  The gardens are composed of many different ethnic gardens, with the "Japanese" representing only a very small part.  You may want to send a message to the person who used that term to inform them that they are mistaken. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychokinesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Davis (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) 09:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cowan reference
I inform you that the issue you consider addressed are not at all as you consider. An explanatory note will be added in article that specifies that memory of dissolved substances is not the same concept as the memory of persistent correlations of hydrogen bond network.--5.15.32.65 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely do not move forward with adding contentious content about Cowan without consensus. Right now, consensus opposes the changes you proposed. You would need to change consensus in order to implement your ideas. That's what WP:DR is for. I'm sorry that you feel that your proposals weren't sufficiently addressed, but the other editors who have commented all have opposed them, and apparently all feel that the issue doesn't warrant further comment. I don't want to discourage you from proposing new ideas, or from making constructive improvements to the article, but this particular issue has been settled among the editors who are currently participating. If you feel those editors are all wrong, then you need to seek input from other people. WP:DR outlines how to do that explicitly... edit warring is not one of them.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that this particular issue has not been addressed sufficiently and does not meet the requirements for consensus to emerge and be settled especially with editors who haven't read the full text to be able to reach a founded conclusion. I also consider that editors that have not read the full text of the reference are not allowed to claim establishment of any consensus. Of course other people could be involved in discussion but only those who have read the full text to see some relevance to the topic of the article, memory of dissolved substances and not some vague impressions got by reading only the abstract.--5.15.46.114 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, I got it. You disagree. That's why I keep telling you to read WP:DR. That's what you do when you don't agree with other editors on the talk page.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Without full text your appeal to WP:DR is (rather, qualifier added--5.15.54.83 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)) useless. I'll read again WP:DR, although I'm somehow familiar with it. Until each one of us, who have discussed here and on the talk page of the article, has not read the full text, there is no consensus established.--5.15.46.114 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The paper's abstract is not worthless. Not every editor has to read the full paper (behind a paywall) in order to see that its abstract clearly relates to the subject. Furthermore, that's not how consensus works (see WP:CON; "no consensus" would still mean you shouldn't make your change). The parts of DR that are most relevant to your situation include pointers to WP:3O, WP:RfC, WP:DRN, WP:RSN and STICK. Those are your 5 options now. RSN is perhaps the best, since you're disputing the inclusion of a source.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't said that the abstract is worthless. (Please do not twist my words with a strawman). It is just not enough in order to exclude the rather high probability of misleading by misunderstanding the abstract. Full text reading and understanding is a necessary condition to prevent misunderstanding of abstract. Those who want to have a word in deciding consensus should, if necessary, buy access to full text. Otherwise their objections and claim of consensus are baseless. --5.15.54.83 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the situation would be simplified if the full text is available on repositories like arXiv.--5.15.54.83 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to make the full text available to editors, go for it. (Of course, please respect the author's copyright and don't post it publicly). Short of that, the paper's summary, written by its authors, which states explicitly that the paper concerns the memory of water, and the paper's appearance in multiple secondary sources which also tie it to water memory and homeopathy, are sufficient to show relevance to the topic. I really don't want to repeat myself again, so go to WP:RSN (or try another avenue of WP:DR) if you have further concerns. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no much need to appeal to WP:RSN. Please don′t misrepresent the source by stating ″the paper's summary, written by its authors, which states explicitly that the paper concerns the memory of water″ when in fact its subject is the hydrogen bond dynamics network. And stay out of topics for which you have not enough WP:CIR to deal with.--5.15.6.82 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok then. Well consensus opposes your change, so if you don't want to seek dispute resolution, then there's nothing more to discuss. See you around.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are in no position to speak of consensus, your statement about it is absolutely baseless. i have to remind you that the consensus is not based on the number of votes (3, you, Brangifer and Jojalozzo) in case you forgot, but on the understanding of the source. In fact there is a consensus between me and Brian to remove the source or at least to introduce a clarifying note based on actual content of the source, not misrepresentations. And you (and apparently your friends Br and Jojal) are against that consensus. See you around.--5.15.8.242 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bilocation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic (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) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

10C
Jess, if you have a moment, would you please offer your thoughts at Talk:Ten Commandments? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting relevant inquiry with regards to the Big Bang Wiki...
Hi Mann Jess,

I used the talk page in a very appropriate manner by asking questions that should be addressed within the context of the subject. You wrote to me asserting that my posting was irrelevant and did not 'support' the page. This was clearly not the case (you certainly do not take the time to demonstrate HOW what I've said gave you this justification.)

The questions related directly to the rationale of how the Wiki lacks specific explanations regarding the subject. You have demonstrated undue prejudice with this regards and I ask you to clarify your reasoning within the context of what I wrote. Here it is again for you to clarify:


 * Hi. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. The place to ask questions about the subject of an article is the WP:Reference desk, or a forum outside of wikipedia. Article talk pages are for discussing changes to articles. We're building an encyclopedia here, not volunteering as librarians or teachers. I'm sure your questions are important to you. You just asked them at the wrong place.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions
Note: The following questions are mine alone and definitely have no religious nor spiritual motive. Oddly, as a strong atheist and skeptic, I have discovered these questions met with an unusual amount of unnecessary ridicule and condescension just as taboo with regards to strong believers who perpetually demand me to require another further investment in deeper resources and authorities. I have yet to discover anyone or any source that has demonstrated a sufficient logical connection in these questions.70.76.33.18 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 1. What justifies the explanation that the background microwave radiation is (a) ...the absolute distinguishing characteristic of a Big Bang cosmology [i.e. its uniqueness]?70.76.33.18 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(b) ...absolutely opposed to or contradicts the Steady State or similar possible version(s) presuming a postulate of the Perfect Cosmological Principle?70.76.33.18 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

2. To establish credibility, is it possible that this theory is in error? (I question this since it seems all too often this subject is closed with respect to any, let alone reasonable, inquiry in most forums, including this one as presented in the above 'warning' to not debate this here. I find that redirection to discuss these elsewhere is a means to trash, ignore, or hide dissenting views and to only encourage those with formally accredited views from the established educational institutions.)70.76.33.18 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As a corollary to this, how is validation of one's predictions alone of this theory considered as sufficient support within the framework of this subject while the same rationalization is obviously fallacious with regards to similar kinds of religious predictions? That is, how is the sole evidence of an instance or class result due to a prediction sufficient support for it and a perfect contradiction for all variations of those predictions that may explain the same result(s)?70.76.33.18 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

3. If it assumed that there has been no other alternate suggestions that improve on this, I ask why, for instance, has the background radiation not been offered more simpler justification such as follows: the radiation can represent higher energy wavelengths from more regular galaxies that have been stretched to the microwave range due to even further distances than what is presumed. ? (The radiation can be of such high frequency that nothing we have is capable of measuring it in close range like those of the closer galaxies.)I am demonstrating here that at least, an alternative potential theory can exist easily that would predict the same phenomena.70.76.33.18 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

4. Does it seem reasonable to question the potential and likely economic, political and authoritative (professional reputations of individuals or institutions) risks involved should the Big Bang Theory be demonstrated to be certainly false? That is, are we so invested in this idea culturally that it isn't possible to ever dislodge it without extensive losses? The momentum of such a theory or similar ones and the investments of those based on them prevent a redress to consider reconstructing them on a better foundational theory.70.76.33.18 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Water memory
Please don't make any more reverts there, even if you think you are right. Thinking you are right is no defence against edit warring. Please use other means to resolve your differences there in the future. --John (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I haven't really been reverting. We've been discussing the issue now on the talk page since this morning. I made two reverts today, both of content that had been discussed thoroughly on the talk page before, and I opened another section on the talk page (as well as a comment on ANI) to encourage additional discussion. While I appreciate the advice, prohibitions on edit warring are to facilitate discussion, which I've personally made every effort to do, and it's been working. I wouldn't exactly characterize the current climate of water memory as edit warring. BTW, I responded to you on ANI. I'd really appreciate if you retracted your comment claiming that I called Brian racist. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverting is reverting, and reverting while discussing is still reverting. I am asking you not to do that. I can't retract a comment I did not make; you made a slightly weird comment about racism and Nobel laureates which I asked you to clarify, and you did. I still very strongly think you shouldn't have brought racism into it. It isn't anything to do with the dispute you are having, so why bring it up? --John (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * John, I don't know how to explain this better. This whole exchange has been positively unpleasant. You misunderstood me. No one else seems to have. Editors were claiming that we should just let Nobel laureates make significant changes that contravene our policies. I used a few examples to show what that would lead to. It would mean our telepathy article says it's a real thing in the case of Brian, and if expanded to other Nobel laureates it would mean the addition of even less desirable content. You then suggested I should be topic banned, implying I called Brian racist. I apologized if I wasn't clear and explained what I had intended, to which you continued to reply aggressively and blamed the misunderstanding on me. Then you accused me of edit warring.
 * We all have different approaches to wikipedia. I sincerely appreciate you sharing yours with me. However, my comment on ANI seems to have communicated the idea I intended to other editors, and my behavior on water memory seems to have facilitated discussion in the way I had hoped. I would appreciate it if you took a collaborative tone when discussing further issues with me. If you're unable to do that, I'd appreciate it if we could simply part ways; I don't need additional aggression in my life. It's one thing when it comes from a content dispute while building the encyclopedia, but this is meta drama on ANI. It's unnecessary, and I'd appreciate if it didn't continue. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I quite agree with your sentiment. You escalated the drama by posting this matter to AN/I when there were other avenues you could have explored. If I see you revert again at Water memory I will block you. Other than that I won't bother you again. Take care, --John (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Since posting to ANI, there has been general agreement that there is a problem. I'm sorry you feel that my taking it to ANI was inappropriate, at least a few other editors appear to disagree. I generally welcome impartial suggestions on my editing style (there's always room for improvement), but I'm frankly baffled by this exchange. You misunderstood me and then became aggressive. I'd appreciate it if you didn't continue posting here. Good luck in other areas of Wikipedia, sincerely.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter
Just FYI, I think the link on your user page is wrong. Incidentally if you go to any regional BJJ tournaments I may run into you at some point. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. You're right. I don't really use twitter, and it so happens I share a name (and handle) with a few teenage girls. I should just pick a new handle one of these days. Thanks! I've been thinking of getting back into tournaments at some point. Hopefully I'll run into you some day! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Webster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commute (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) 09:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)