User talk:Jess/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

regarding recent reversion on common misconceptions page

sorry but i'm not sure a reliable as such source can be found for something that is common knowledge such as this. what would be the proper procedure? i figured that since the wikipedia article links and cites it would be considered a good source as such. --RebAvi (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bed literally right now... but you are welcome to pursue WP:RS for info on reliable sources, or ask another experienced editor (or post on the talk page) for further info. If you have any more questions tomorrow, I'll be in better shape to help out :) All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 10:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research?

Hi Jess,

Thanks for your advice. You may be right about the need for citations but I believe the normal policy is to tag this rather than simply delete the addition in its entirely. I personally feel that citations are not absolutely essential in this case, since the argument is simply based on the uncontrovertable plot sequence of the original texts. However, the key points are not my own so I will shortly restore the contribution with appropriate citations.

Please feel free to contact me about this if necessary.

Regards,

Sineaste --Sineaste (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging is done when content is already in the article, and finding a source for it seems reasonable. New content which is added to an article without a source should be removed until one can be found. And, per WP:V, sources are definitely essential. Verifiability is a foundational principal of wikipedia. Jess_talk|_edits 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for looking out.

That was actually me I edited my page from the public library. I did not feel like logging in, I was using my ZuneHD so it would have been time consuming. But I was planning to check if you could make your personal page only editable to autoconfirmed users or something.--Nishauncom (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What you're talking about is semiprotection. That can be done to user talk pages, but it only is appropriate in cases of high levels of vandalism. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Genesis Code

I reverted a bunch edits by an IP assuming vandalism but now I'm not sure. Could you take a look and revert me if I made a mistake. Slightsmile (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He put another edit, so I think I'll just point it to an admin. Sorry about that. Slightsmile (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. I looked over the edits very briefly, and it doesn't immediately look like vandalism to me. However, if you have a reason to suspect that it is, issue him a warning on his user talk page, and if he persists then file a report at WP:AIV. If you have any specific questions, feel free to let me know :) All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 00:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I know this one was so hard to tell. I was kicking myself for getting bogged on this one but then I saw someone just blocked it for year. A school IP. Slightsmile (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clementkuehn

We need to work with him, he seems to be an expert on the subject who doesn't understand how we work. He could be an asset. He's responded on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See his comments on my talk page. I see no reason not to leave the links now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

/* September 2010 */ description of the reason for two links in "Genesis Creation Narrative"

Dear Jess, I thought that I was adding useful information to the "Genesis Creation Narrative" site. Anastasius of Sinai (Anastasius Sinaita) discusses the Genesis creation narrative extensively in 12 books in his Hexaemeron. His Hexaemeron also contains citations of many previous commentators on the creation narrative: from Philo to Basil the Great. Thus his Hexaemeron, in many ways, is a compendium of commentaries on the creation narrative by Fathers of the Church prior to 700. Most students and scholars do not realize this, because his Hexaemeron was not published in the original Greek and was not translated into a modern language until 2007. Anastasius himself, despite his enormous importance in the Middle Ages, is often not taught in universities, because critical editions of his works have only begun to be published. Thus I also added a site about his life and works in general.

If, however, these two links still seem gratuitous, I would be happy to remove them. I do not want to be contentious. I enjoy your work on Wikipedia too much! (I did not see, at first, who had removed the two links.)

So let me know what you would like.

Thanks for your patience,

Clementkuehn (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Clementkuehn. I'm sorry if I came off short before (you can only pack so much info into an edit summary!) I'm not at all familiar with the content dispute, so I think you're best off discussing the matter with DougWeller. My earlier revert was only on the grounds that you had added the same info to a bunch of other articles and been reverted, so I was just completing the cleanup. I trust Doug's judgement that your content is relevant and within policy, so I'll leave it to you and other editors to hash out as necessary. If I get the time, perhaps I'll go through it all and jump into the discussion then... but in the meantime, thanks for the contributions! Sorry for any misunderstanding before, but welcome to WP. Ask if you have any questions, and good luck :) Jess_talk|_edits 02:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

[1] Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have actually. I think I caught it from the same place you did. It's unfortunately not the first (or even first couple) times I've been the subject of an angry rant somewhere on the web because of a rather tame incident elsewhere... so it's not like he's trudging my name through the dirt any more than others have already tried. What I do find funny (even disturbing) is that other editors there seem to agree with him. I'm not sure how else that discussion could have possibly been phrased to be less biased... but oh well. My only real concern is that he's labeled the page "Wikipedia Debate 1", which gives me the impression he wishes to debate here, rather than contribute constructively. That may be something to look out for. Thanks for the heads up! Jess_talk|_edits 23:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the '1'. It certainly isn't anything you should worry about. I'm not sure what you mean about other editors agreeing, but I haven't looked at any other pages on the site. Dougweller (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I browsed around a bit after seeing the "debate" link. His talk page, for instance, is an interesting read. particularly the last two sections where he attempts to recruit others into the Baraminology discussion here. I'm of course happy to be proven wrong, but I think I'll keep my concern for a little longer :p Jess_talk|_edits 17:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the site just makes me ill. So much dishonesty. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Likewise! Thanks for looking out -- I definitely would have wanted to know about this if I hadn't seen it already, so I appreciate it! :) Jess_talk|_edits 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism

An anonymous editor (the same one) reverted the edit back. I suspect this could be an ongoing issue. Your intervention is kindly requested. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have reverted the edit already, so not much I can do unless he decides to discuss the content. I did give him a 3rr warning (which is {{uw-3rr}}). If he reverts more than 3 times, then file a report at WP:AN3, which will get him blocked for a day. If he then persists or he socks, then you'll need to go to WP:RFPP to get the page protected temporarily. Thanks for looking out for this! :) Jess_talk|_edits 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. For future reference, please use "he or she" as we would not want to offend female vandals (just kidding!!!). Best regards once again! :) Obamafan70 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Quayle

He's a candidate, I think having him listed as a candidate makes perfect sense. If he weren't a candidate he wouldn't even have a wiki page, so I don't see the sense in trying to mask this fact. His opponent has a page very similar to what I had posted and I don't see you jumping in there to make revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAndrewClarkC123 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained in edit summaries, you are edit warring against other editors. This has nothing to do with the content... it has to do with how you're approaching adding it. You need to discuss the change on the article talk page. Please read WP:BRD, and then start a new section on the article talk page to discuss your proposal. Jess_talk|_edits 12:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:FMCCcampus.png

Thanks for uploading File:FMCCcampus.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FMCCcampus.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FMCCcampus.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (book)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Efiiamagus/The_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument_(book)

Please feel free to edit and contribute to this. Efiiamagus (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

wtf

ip addresses are reused by many people

you should not attack someone who happened to get assigned the ip used by someone else to make an edit that you dont like

i never attacked anybody unless you consider an edit an attack because that was a change , perhaps that you disagree with , or perhaps cause you dont want your golden words changed by anybody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.103 (talk • contribs)

As the comment I made indicates, if you are using a dynamic ip address, you should consider making an account to avoid irrelevant notices. When someone vandalizes wikipedia, we issue warnings to that user. By editing anonymously under a dynamic or shared ip, you may occasionally be subject to warnings and/or blocks for the behavior of other users. Creating an account avoids those risks. Also, please sign talk pages with four tildes ~~~~ so others know who you are. Jess_talk|_edits 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, frankly, your behavior indicates a distinct possibility you're the same editor who made the initial personal attack. I'd suggest reading over WP:AGF before engaging other editors. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FMCCcampus.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FMCCcampus.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Vitriol and Bias

soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I posted on the article talk page already.... my edits were GOOD FAITH... And were accurate and neutral. NO VALID REASON TO KEEP REVERTING IT, IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING SO BLATANTLY POV AND BIASED, IN THE LEAD. you have it backwards. YOU (and your crew) are the ones injecting BLATANT BIAS AND NON-OBJECTIVE nonsense on this article, because of ranker, hate, venom, pathology, and agendas. And treating it like a forum, to do nothing but bash, and gripe, instead of presenting anything neutrally. The article is not a MySpace blog, but it's supposed to be an Encyclopedic article that is supposed to have at least a semblance of neutral tone. Saying "pseudoscience" especially right off the bat in the lead is anything but "neutral". I simply re-worded it with a more neutral unbiased and factual tone. With no pro or con either way. Yet you call my thing "vitriol"???? Talk about bizarro world. That's why to many people, Wikipedia does not have the credibility that it should have. But how is my re-wording of the lead "biased"? JUST HOW SPECIFICALLY? All you did was assert it, but didn't explain or demonstrate it. I never worded as either pro or con. But simply NEUTRAL. (maybe you were referring to some of my edit comments...then. But the actual edits that I did were NOT "vitriol", but were simply accurately and neutrally stated. With no slant either way.) How is "Icons of Evolution is a creationist work by biologist Jonathan Wells that attempts to assert that often-cited evidences for Darwinian evolution theory are really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory. The book has been rejected by the majority in the scientific community." "vitriol"?? How is that wording there "biased"? There's NO pro or con bias either way in my wording. it's simply accurate and NEUTRAL. but with the other intro wording IT WAS SO SLANTED AND OPINIONATED ("majority view" or not by coccoon reviewed "scientists" or not) it's like not funny. Leave your biased junk off of WP articles. It's in violation of the NUMBER ONE pillar of WP Policy. NEUTRALITY IN WORDING, with "NPOV" summarized in WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV How is: "Icons of Evolution is a pseudoscientific[1] book" not insulting, biased, vitriolic, neurotic, snarky? To many people it's NOT "pseudoscientific", but simply a book that challenges certain Darwinist talking points and supposed "proofs" of the theory. My re-wording had NO bias EITHER WAY. There was no pro or con in either direction. But it was simply a factual accurate objective statement, stated neutrally. Listen.... If a Young Earth Creationist came on the article and injected stuff like "This book demolishes Darwinism" I WOULD REMOVE THAT TOO !!!! If I saw biased junk EITHER WAY put in there, I would undo it. because it's called being NEUTRAL. something you and your edits SIMPLY ARE NOT.... Again, the first pillar of Wikipedia editing is NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW... NEUTRALITY IN WORDING, with "NPOV" summarized in WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV And it simply is not being followed on this article. There's so much POV in this article, it reads like a Darwinist blog on MySpace, rather than a neutral Encyclopedic article, that tries to show at least a semblance of objectivity in tone...... 68.237.215.48 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You only need to post in one place... please don't copy/paste responses from article talk pages to my user page. I responded there. In short, you're not discussing improvements to the article, you're ranting. Try to be specific about what changes you'd like made and why, and please keep the discussion there. Jess_talk|_edits 19:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I shortened the points here, (and on the talk page of the article), a lot more, if that makes you happy... because you don't like what's being said you call it ranting and soap-boxing, and blank the whole thing basically. try addressing the points instead of whining about the length or whatever.... Anyway, I made it a lot shorter... With less "soap-boxing" or whatever you saw it as.

The basic point is that my edits were good-faith AND SHOWED NO BIAS EITHER WAY. If a Young Earther came on and made the intro pro-Wells, I WOULD REMOVE THAT TOO. That was my basic point. Try addressing that specifically. Thank you. 68.237.215.48 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you would have done if someone else made another edit. It only matters to me what is being done now. You're introducing new content, and you are not defending that content. Again, let's keep this on the article talk page. Not here. You don't need to respond here again. Jess_talk|_edits 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of atheism - thanks!

Thanks for your preservation of my comment on 91.110.10.177's flaky spelling. The amusing thing is that he didn't correct his own misspelling from which I was quoting! -- Jmc (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Hi Mann jess. I'm not sure if you noticed it, but in a WP:SMS I noted that I already have taken the issue to talk--not article talk, though, because the issue isn't specific to this article, but rather guideline talk (at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section)#Simple descriptions), because the problem concerns the interpretation of a guideline. As for this article, the title might not be "particularly long", but I don't think that "short" and "long" correspond all that well to "simplicity" and "complexity". A long steel rod is no more complex than a short one, and a tall person isn't necessarily more sophisticated than a short one. The strongest similarity among the terms appears to be that both "short and long" and "simple and complex" are both highly subjective judgments. On MoS talk, though, I've suggested a more objective demarcation scheme. If you have any questions, concerns, or objections regarding my proposal, then I invite you to bring them up on MoS talk. Regards, Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cosmic Latte. Thanks for inquiring about this issue. However, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of ambiguity from my perspective, as the MoS appears to indicate that the title should be bold in all cases except where doing so would be awkward or impossible. For example, there are a variety of articles where the exact title doesn't appear in the opening sentence, and in those (complex) cases there is obviously nothing to bolden. Objections to Evolution doesn't have that problem. I have no concerns about you raising any issues of ambiguity on the MoS talk page (and indeed would welcome you to), but for the time being it appears there's consensus to keep the boldness in this particular case. If you'd like to change the article prior to receiving clarification on the MoS talk page, then per WP:BRD the next step would be to discuss it on the article talk. That was the purpose of my revert and edit summary. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Your interpretation of "complex" strikes me as a reasonable alternative to my own suggestion. Would you mind if I add a link to your above response on MoS talk, to provide editors with another potential way to resolve the simple/complex issue over there? (I'm not being sarcastic, by the way--I want people to view my suggestion in relation to other possibilities, so that the resulting consensus reflects some critical thinking, rather than passive acceptance of my idea just because I had a lot to say about it.) Again, thank you for your explanation, and thank you in advance if you'll permit a link to your explanation on MoS talk. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. You never need to ask. Everything I contribute to the site is free to use. That's kind of the point :p Jess_talk|_edits 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Don't edit war"

Jess, noticed that, in your participation in what YOU idendtified as an edit war, you admonished me not to edit war. Do you get it? So, while you're edit waring, you say, in effect "Please don't edit war, but instead allow me to edit war and win",,, to which I have a simple reply. Starts with an "N".... ends with an "O"... NO. Get it? No! No, you don't have some authority that I don't have. No, you don't get to set the ejenda. No, you can't argue that I'm PA, and I'm not allowed to respond. NO. Get it? NO Steve kap (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BRD, as I advised you to do earlier. You're trying to make a change to an article, and have been reverted by several editors. That's called edit warring, and it's covered quite clearly in WP:EW. Reading WP:CIVIL might be good for you too, as your tone across the site thus far has been far from constructive. Also, as I've spoken to you about this sort of behavior on a few occasions now, I'd highly suggest heading the advice of the multitude of editors who have commented thus far, as it is your responsibility to be aware of these policies and to abide by them. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. I don't want to see that happen, so I'd suggest taking some time to cool off and read through the linked pages. Jess_talk|_edits 23:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

I wasn't aware you had closed it. There was an edit conflict so I had to copy-paste and reinsert it. Also, thank you for not merely deleting my answer to Walter Görlitz. Rmcfanatic (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) I just moved it up into the closed section. We're all editing at the same time, so edit conflicts are bound to occur. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 00:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) Rmcfanatic (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You should consider using

You reverted on global warming, asserting that you something appeared to be original research. You didn't assume good faith. Are you knowledgeable enough to KNOW it is original research? If not, why didn't you just use . If you had read the source for the original statement, you would know that the same source supports the new statement.--Africangenesis (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The cn tag is intended for content which is already included in the article, for which there appears to be a reasonable likelihood that a source will be found in the future. It is not intended for dubious content added without sourcing. For that, I'd suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:V. You also may wish to read WP:BOLD, since you appear to be taking it as a personal sleight that I've reverted your edit, and by extension are assuming bad faith from me. From what I've seen you post on the discussion page, you don't appear to have a strong desire to work collaboratively with other editors, but instead appear to be editing to "right great wrongs", or some such... If I'm incorrect, then by all means please demonstrate that, but doing so will require some effort on your part finding reliable sources which support the content you wish to include, and a change in tone on discussion pages. Until then, asserting bad faith of an editor who you've interacted with only once, and POV and bias of any editor who objects to your content doesn't generally go a long way to demonstrating collaborative editing. Jess_talk|_edits 19:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you had not read the first source, the one used for the original statement. I quote

"In contrast, the direct radiative forcing due to increases in solar irradiance is estimated to be +0.12 (90% range from 0.06 to 0.3) W m–2."

Note that the forcing is positive, not cooling as in the incorrect statement you restored. Consider also from that same source:

"but over the entire period from 1984 to 2001, surface solar radiation has increased by about 0.16 W m–2 yr–1 on average (Pinker et al., 2005)."

The difference between us is that I am actually familiar with the literature and actually read the sources. You should stay away from articles instead of participating in mob behavior if you aren't going to take the time to familiarize yourself with the topic. Will you take responsibility for restoring the text and defending the correction version? --Africangenesis (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, are you offering to collaborate? Which of the other participants don't come to the article with an agenda?--Africangenesis (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See, your last paragraph is a breach of WP:PA. If you continue to make comments like this about every editor who disagrees with you, it's going to become impossible to work constructively, and it will begin to result in warnings and possible admin intervention. If you had just left out the first and last paragraph from this reply, you would have been fine.

As for your specific edit, this discussion belongs on the Talk:Global Warming page, not here... but I'll respond to it briefly. Your edit began "High levels of solar activity probably contributed to the recent warming". Is there a place within that source which specifically says that? As far as I can tell, what you've done is taken a study which talks about an increase in solar activity, and applied it to temperature patterns. This may or may not be true, but in either case it is a violation of WP:SYNTH and constitutes original research. We need a reliable source which says exactly what you wish to include in the article, or we can't include it. Jess_talk|_edits 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoted you at ANI

Hi. Thought I should let you know that I just quoted you in this thread at ANI, with respect to user Gniniv who, after a three-day retirement, reappeared under wp:cleanstart as user Terra Novus, and whose signature reads "Novus Orator". Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• sigh*. I knew this would happen. It was just a matter of time.... Thanks for letting me know. I'll hop in as necessary / as time allows. Thanks Jess_talk|_edits 15:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Jess,

While I am a qualified engineer and have programmed computers since the days of the Eliot 803, I don't do that now.

I am not interested in messing around with four tildes curly brackets and square brackets.

These days I communicate in English -- a high level language used in the Apollo article.

I found a reference to a YouTube reference that was dead.

You have reinstated the dead link.

What the goodness are you playing at??

If you want people to contribute don't expect them to learn a new language. I am not prepared to learn Wiki-gibberish; I speak English, French, German, Spanish and Italian. Not tildes and curly brackets.

Strongly suggest that you correct that link as it destroys your anti-conspiracy case. Indeed make the case for conspiracy. I see that someone says that the video is 'all over the Internet' -- Eyes glaze-over at that stage!!

Not that I care, I don't know either way, I was just trying to research.

Wiki has a dreadful reputation, you know for hobby-horses and single-issue soap-boxers.

Thanks for listening. Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemainD (talk • contribs) 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi LemainD. If the link is dead, we certainly do want to fix it. However, the solution to the problem is to fix the link or to add info to the cite template that the link is dead. What you did is add text on the page saying the link was broken, which isn't encyclopedic content we want to be adding to articles. I didn't have time to track a new link down myself, so I simply reverted your change in the hopes that you or another editor would be able to do that. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How do I add your page to my 'watchlist'?

This system has to be the most user-unfriendly system since DOS died. If you'd like to reply to my last comment then kindly reply to me as I have no intention of spending the next hour finding out how to add you to my watchlist.

If the Wiki wants knowledgeable people to contribute to the Wiki then you must let them communicate in ordinary language.

A butcher might know a lot about meat but not be able or willing to mess about with odd symbols that might not even be on his keyboard but the butcher's opinion, on the subject of meat, is of far more use than a geek's.

Bill Gates discovered that in the late 1970s.

Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemainD (talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

At the top right of the page, there should be a star button. If you click on the star it will add the page to your watchlist. As you spend time on wikipedia, you'll become more familiar with the syntax and discover why it's useful (and necessary). All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Al-Tighnari

Hi Jess,

Just a note to ask you to be a little more careful with tags such as this. The subject misses being a living person by nearly 900 years. Also Tignar should remain as a red link to encourage the creation of an article, as all settlements of any size are considered suitable subjects for Wikipedia articles - see WP:Red link and WP:OUTCOMES#Places. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I seem to think of BLP as "Biography of long-dead persons". :p. On new articles I tend to remove all the redlinks, since new users will often link almost everything, even when it doesn't warrant inclusion as an article. In this case, it was my assumption that Tignar was incorrectly linked (See, e.g., Albany, NY, as opposed to Albany). You're probably right in this case. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A recent revert of yours

Although the user wrote as if he was reverting another user,this was a revert of a Bot that was checking for grammar which is typically acceptable to revert by users who disagree with them, so I doesn't seem to qualify as being edit warring.
Please disregard, I am operating under little sleep. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. No worries. Thanks for the attempted heads up anyway :) Jess_talk|_edits 07:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A word of warning(a friendly reminder, as I side with you on this issue)

Regarding this edit, you retype their username as Novice instead of Novus; this could probably be seen as an attack by them, and even more used as ammo. Was this a typo? Just letting you know if it was, and for the implications. If I'm wrong, and Novus is actually just the same word in another language, than feel free to disregard this message, and sorry for any wasted time.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Eek! That was, in fact, a typo. BTW, Novus relates to Novice in latin (his username translates to "The New World"), but my mistake was just a force of habit talking in English and not dead languages. Thank you for pointing that out... I certainly don't want what I said to come off as an attack! I corrected it when I saw this. :) See you around! Jess_talk|_edits 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, figured it was latin. Welcome!— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Don't faux threaten me. I am not engaged in an edit war, I reverted vandalism to the articles page. Before that I had no dealings with the user. The edit has already been discussed in length on the talk page and even ignoring that the edits by that user conflict with Wikipedias rules and policies, the reasons for my reversion of his vandalism have been already discussed in length and detail on the talk page. He was already notified twice about this before his last vandalism and he so far has refused to discuss the reasons for his edits on the talk page. In fact going so far as to hide the discussion from the talk pages view (in a violation of Wikipedias rules) AFTER his vandalism.

If you have a problem with this then either you discuss the reason for the reverts of an article that complies with Wikipedia or you tell that user to discuss it before reverting. It has already been dealt with and any further reverts after this will be taken as admission of vandalism if no changes are dicussed on the talk page. Learn the rules. 203.59.114.15 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Please read WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Consensus is not determined by vote. The issue you're arguing has been discussed ad-naseum on the talk page, is well sourced on the page, and has the support of numerous longstanding editors. If you have questions about how we determine what content to add into articles, or any other issues, I would suggest taking the time to ask a more experienced editor. Your language thus far is bordering on personal attacks, which is not likely to further your point. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 04:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report

Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 503 editors 2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives Our encounter with Jimbo Wales Guild home pages reorganized and redesigned Report on our inaugural elections Guild Plans for 2011 New barnstars introduced Requests page improved Sign up for the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011! – Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Civility Award
		I frequently see you at pages dealing with controversies about religion, where there is no shortage of drama, and you are always a voice of calm and reason. Keep up the good work—it's needed and appreciated! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Since you're a regular, I'll not template you. But I will ask you to (1) respect the consensus process and not add disputed information without consensus; and (2) review WP:EW and WP:3RR. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'm edit warring. I added information to an article once. WP:EW concerns re-reverting disputed changes. As I mentioned on the talk page prior to doing so, if you still disagree, you are more than welcome to revert me and discuss it further. However, I'm not sure what further sourcing you'd like than what I've provided. I understand you're probably frustrated from working with the vast amount of movement on that page all of today (which I commend you for, by the way), but if at all possible, I'd like to keep the discussion tame and in perspective. With that in mind, could you perhaps give me an idea of what kind of sourcing you would like to see to include that content, besides what has already been provided? All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually you added it twice. But sorry if I gave you the impression that I think you are edit warring. I was simply asking you not to edit war, and to follow the standard consensus procedure. As for what kind of sourcing I would like, a reliable source that unequivocally states that the misconception is common (which is more than "every Jew has heard it"; see the article's talk page for why that is not sufficient) would be excellent. There are some items in the article that actually provide sources specifically stating that it is a "common misconception" or "a misconception held by most people" or even a specific percentage of the population that subscribes to the misconception. Additionally, even if "every Jew has heard it" and every Jew believes it, is that a common misconception in general, or a common misconception among Jews? This is just my opinion, but as a non-Jew, I'd be willing to bet money that most non-Jews have never even heard of this misconception. Finally, you can also add the items if there is a consensus on the talk page to do so. Thanks for your reply. Cresix (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that two edits went in to the article -- not sure how that happened, perhaps some silliness with edit conflicts. I addressed your content concerns on the talk page. I have some other concerns which I've copied over on to your talk page, since it seems more appropriate there. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 04:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume I didn't read a source in question. That is an assumption of bad faith. As for removal of edits, I'll remind you again that it is inappropriate to add disputed information in the midst of ongoing discussion about the disputed material. You did that three times. Please stop edit warring and changing without consensus. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, so are you claiming that you found and read the book in question in 11 minutes? Secondly, I'll remind you again, that adding sourced content to an article for the first time is not against policy, nor is it edit warring. Please take the time to read over WP:BRD in full again. Further, there's not really a dispute going on. Your objections to the material are alone, and to my mind appear unfounded. I'm not sure why you're so adamant about keeping this material out of the article, but it's getting a little silly. Jess_talk|_edits 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Jess,

I removed a biased statement that the ID argument was psudoscientific. I'm not stating that it's a scentific argument, however to call it psudoscientific is to also color it with the brush of the anti-ID crowd. Is calling it an argument biased - and if so how?

Calling it an argument made by Bebe is fair. He is a PHD scientist so it is insulting to call his argument psudo-scientific.

Similarly, statements about arguments from increduility are being misappplied. This is not a matter of God, but of science. If I saw a car built with thousands of interconnecting parts on the side of the road, and someone told me it just happened to assemble itself that way, because of a quirk of nature, and it just happens to work, I would be increduilous (sp). But that is supposed to be the stronger side of the argument? And implying that there is some intent for it to work is the weaker side?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 

Hi 76.66.20.96. Welcome to wikipedia. I understand what you're saying, but one of the core tenants of this site is verifiability. We need to report what our reliable sources say objectively without casting judgement on them in order to conform to WP:NPOV. As it stands, we have an extensive array of reliable sources supporting the notion that IC is pseudoscience. You are more than welcome to discuss any complaints with the article on the article's talk page, but if you do, I would suggest first reading WP:FRINGE, and then finding reliable sources which back up your view. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way.... while debates about the article topic are not appropriate on wikipedia, I really must point out that your comparison to finding a self-assembling car is fallacious, and misrepresents the arguments being made. This is not how evolution works. If you're interested, I'd highly suggest reading through Introduction to Evolution, as it covers all the main points fairly well. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 08:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jess didn't read your reply first (wasn't coming up) but before you change it back, please consider that

1) the "reliable sources" are the so-called same people who oppose the argument! How can that be considered neutral?

2) calling it by a pejorative (which wikipedia does) colours the understanding of the rest of the article, and may disuade people from reading it

3) New science takes time. It shouldn't be discounted just becuause it isn't understood yet. Both sides should be given a chance. Calling it an argument alone does not make it right, but calling it pseudo ... does make it sound wrong.

I'm getting up to speed on the wikipedia procedures. I'll try to do it better next time.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly, but this really belongs on the article talk page.

1) The same could be said about "Flat Earth Theory" or "Geocentrism". Sometimes all our reliable sources are opposed to a notion, and we have to reflect that. We are allowed to state what it is that Geocentrists claim about the universe, but it needs to be supplemented with the documented scientific consensus that it is incorrect. The same is true for IC. All of our reliable sources say one thing, so that is what we have to report. The only way to change this is to find reliable sources which say otherwise. I'd suggest reading WP:V for more information on that.

2) Whether people will choose to read an article has no bearing on what content should be included in it.

3) IC isn't new, and it's not science according to our reliable sources. But even if it were a "new science", that doesn't change the fact that it is rejected by the whole of the significant scientific community right now. If that changes in the future, and it becomes accepted as a field of science, then we can update the article at that time. Until then, wikipedia is not, and cannot be a crystal ball. We report the state of things now, and cannot assume what they will be in the future.

I understand you want this section changed, but the way to go about that is finding sources which back up your position. By reintroducing the same content into the article, you are edit warring, which is not only against the rules, but also not an effective way to get your views expressed. I'd suggest hunting down some sources and proposing them on the article talk page for other editors to discuss. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will follow up on your suggestions Jess. Much appreciated. Regarding scientific assumptions that are clearly disproven through indisuputable evidence, there is no psudo-science involved. It is just plain wrong. That is not the situation here. Very little is proven on either side. Much may be accepted, but little is proven.

I'll learn more about the issue and discuss it on the talk page. Still I've read that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule".

In the meantime, I do feel that doubly characterising the argument as psudo-science is un-necessary and redundant and therefore leans towards bias. The term psudo-science is not a scientic term according to its article and has questionable if any positive value. It belongs in the second characterization which describes the view of the opponents. This better reflects the spirt of neutrality of Wikipedia, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Thought you deserved a little more explanation about this.[2] During the Climate Change arbcom case and its aftermath editors were taken to task and in some cases blocked for altering others' talk page comments. I appreciate what you were trying to do there, but given the special circumstances surrounding this topic area think it best to observe a strict policy of never altering comments made by others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Short Brigade. Thanks for the explanation of your revert. If you think leaving the comment in place is best, then that's fine. I'm not sure, however, that reverting clear cases of personal attacks falls under the umbrella of "altering others' comments". I would presume "altering" would involve changing language or deleting portions of text, and would assume clear cases of personal attacks would fall outside of that scope in any case. The talk page guidelines, for example, allow for removing clear breaches of WP:PA, and PA also specifies that it is acceptable to do so (though admittedly adding that users have various opinions on the matter). As the comment in question began with "Then you are ignorant or a liar", it would seem to be a pretty clear violation. I'm not sure... perhaps the arbcom case explicitly discussed this issue, or there's a precedent I'm unaware of. I'll certainly leave the comment on the page, but I'd just like to be clear on policy if there's something you know that I don't. Are you aware of an arbcom ruling or policy page which specifies under what conditions it's not okay to remove PAs? All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 06:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Insults and baiting aren't exactly the same as personal attacks though, and are more like being incivil.
Consider the list of things considered to be rude at WP:CIVILITY:

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
• (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
• (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

WP:PA typically considers there needs to be something explicit personal about the attack such as "You are an XXX(republican, secularist, woman) therefore *insult*", and not just uncivil, but relatively impersonal insults that are not based off of your personal characteristics:

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil

It can be a grey area, so in general I would avoid removing the comments of others unless they are highly offensive, spam, or obvious trolling, as removing an uncivil comment by another editor will likely just generate more negative feelings. If problems persist then you should follow the usual procedures of warning, and then going to ANI after awhile, and just avoid removing text unless it's very offensive.--AerobicFox (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey AerobicFox. Thanks for the reply. I didn't know you were my talk page stalker! :D I guess I was construing WP:PA more broadly than you and Short Brigade. The distinction I was drawing between a PA and incivility largely regarded the way it was targeted. For instance, "That comment was stupid" => incivility, whereas "You're stupid" => personal attack. That still seems rather logical to me, but perhaps my view isn't the standard interpretation of WP:PA. I'll look into adopting your definitions if they're generally preferred. Thanks for the explanation :) Jess_talk|_edits 09:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

Per WP:V any statement likely to be challenged needs a reference. As soon as those references in Gold Standard were aligned properly I accepted the end result. Unsourced claims are not allowed in Wikipedia.--  Novus  Orator  05:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Terra, you're not understanding. The content was sourced. The sources "not being aligned properly" isn't a reason to remove stuff. I'm not going to keep repeating this... I brought it up multiple times with you many months ago, and it seems it's still going on. When you remove unsourced content or add CN tags, you need to first read the sources throughout the paragraph. You cannot simply assume the content is unsourced and remove it. When a sentence is sourced in the very next sentence, that is perfectly acceptable, and you challenging it because you didn't read the paragraph is not constructive editing. Jess_talk|_edits 08:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't read the relevant part of WP:V. Any statement likely to be challenged must be sourced. The material I removed did not clearly connect with the references. Once the references were added I offered no objection to those statements.--  Novus  Orator  08:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to say it. The statement was sourced. It was sourced in the very next sentence. You need to read the paragraph before removing text for being unsourced. If you continue removing well sourced content because you haven't done your due diligence of actually reading the surrounding citations, I or another editor is likely to take the issue to an appropriate noticeboard. Please just read the context before removing stuff. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 08:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, all of my editing will be in accordance to Wikipedia Policy, I wouldn't have noticed these issues if I hadn't been reading the paragraphs. If editors are offended that their uncited material is being removed per Wikipedia policy, I would suggest that they make it clear what they are sourcing. Cheers!--  Novus  Orator  09:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly wikilawyering. We all know that WP:V isn't supposed to be used the way you use it. You are trying to get things you disagree with removed based on (misinterpreted) technicalities, and in the process severely detracting from the quality of encyclopedia. WP:INCITE says that references for a given statement can provided at both be at the end the sentence as well at the end of the paragraph. Some people do not find it practical to cite the same source over and over again if a whole paragraph is written using the same source. They will then instead just put in a reference at the end of the whole paragraph. This is clearly an acceptable practice in accordance with WP:CITE. To then have you go around, removing the first parts of paragraphs sourced like this is really no help at all to the encyclopedia. Often all that will be left are meaningless statements, as the properly sourced context given by the first part of the paragraph has been removed. It is totally understandable that mistakes may happen when editing Wikipedia, and one may not have found the reference provided for a given statement. This does not however mean that one it is not required to read the full paragraph (and reference for it) before removing statements within it. If one then finds that it may be unclear that the whole paragraph was sourced from the reference at the end, it might be appropriate to insert repetitions of the reference throughout the paragraph. It is how not appropriate at all as you have practiced to remove the whole first part of the paragraph. If you do not stop this practice, as Mann jess have said, it will have to be reported to the appropriate noticeboard.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of religion

You said "In more than one case, you removed references.". You're mistaken. I've just removed one reference and that was because it was tagged as broken links since October 2009. Please, consider reverting your revert. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I went back and looked, and it was indeed more than one. And many of the "long-standing" tags weren't there very long at all. I think this request has something to do with Damiens already being at 3RR for today. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It was more than one, and in one case, you removed the respective content which the refs initially supported. It is customary to find other references to replace the dead link (that's the purpose of the dead link template). At best, tagging the section as CN would be appropriate. The child abuse in Islam issue, for instance, has been discussed on the talk page, and could certainly be better referenced if an editor put in the time. If you'd like to do that, I'd welcome it. I don't necessarily oppose removal of some of the other CN content or weasel wording either, but someone should make a good faith effort to find sourcing first. Jess_talk|_edits 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked it once again and I just see one source removed. Would you list me the ones you see? --Damiens.rf 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You removed 3 reference tags for 2 sources:

1. "Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children".
2. Papademetriou, George C. "Exorcism in the Orthodox Church". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Jess_talk|_edits 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed two. Impressive. Thanks for pointing out. I was sincere in my wrong math. I'm sorry you've used you time to compensate for my incompetence.

Back to the point... they're deadlinks, and you've reverted my whole edition where I removed dozen of unsourced statements that were tagged as such for ages. That was not nice. Those tags are not supposed to work as permanent decoration. --Damiens.rf 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't necessarily oppose some of the content being removed. Indeed, some of it is weasely, and should be reworded or deleted. With that in mind, there were enough issues with your edit to deem it "controversial" at best, which is why I suggested you take your concerns to the talk page. For instance, removing the dead links and their respective content is not customary. If you check the talk page, we used to have 2 sources for the "Islam" bit, and it has been discussed on a couple of occasions. That the links died doesn't mean it's no longer true, or that consensus is no longer to keep it around. Jess_talk|_edits 16:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

hatting

Jess. Dave has some page ownership issues at the ID page; please don't enable him. it's acceptable to hat disruptive conversations, marginally, but this conversation is not disruptive, and I am a bit pissed off at the reception I'm getting so you can trust me when I say I'll get administrators to intervene if this keeps up. You can let that thread alone and not respond to it if you so desire, and I'll likely do the same (since the conversation is moving on), but don't push me on this point. --Ludwigs2 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, the proposal is both closed and disruptive, and your harsh language to me while sidestepping WP:AGF, particularly when my actions were supported by other editors, is inappropriate. I'm leaving the section alone, but only because I have better things to do with my time than edit warring over talk page content... That said, I'd highly advise you to read WP:BOOMERANG before trying to take these sorts of issues to WP:ANI. Frankly, based on many of the responses you and Hrfan have exchanged, I've considered bringing it there myself, and if that behavior continues it's quite likely I will. I've gone well out of my way to phrase my replies to you civilly and to assume good faith, and I'd kindly ask that you do the same. Jess_talk|_edits 05:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

okie dokie, all I wanted. --Ludwigs2 06:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

replying here rather than ID, because this is straying too far afield.

I know it probably doesn't seem like it from what you've seen of me, but I am (generally speaking) far more aware of my communication style than most people. Sometimes I get honestly pissed off and vent, yes, but usually if you see me displaying an identifiable attitude it's because I'm doing something intentional to change the editing atmosphere on the page. It doesn't always work (and the ID article is one frigging tough nut to crack, let me tell you), but it works more often than you'd think. I'm not too concerned about my public reputation there; everything I've done simply serves to reaffirm the opinion that people like Dave and hrafn already had of me. Trust me, they would be saying exactly the same things if I were sweet as ice cream and pure as the driven snow.

Don't know if that will make you think worse of me or better of me, but there it is. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of common misconceptions for deletion

The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) 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 good 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh hey. Thank you for your insightful and articulate remarks on the discussion. When I cast my most-definitely-not-a-vote, it'll have to feature a great deal of your arguments.

...I feel a little dirty in posting this, butcan't tell why so I'm going ahead. --Kizor 21:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kizor. Glad to hear it! I'll see you over there :) Jess_talk|_edits 06:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Jess, I am a new editor, and working on the acupuncture page. I find the existing editors a little difficult to talk to. I am trying to navigate through this but, I have been finding several sources misused in the article, and when I bring it up on the page they ignore me or any editor who is not anti-acupuncture, revert changes etc. I'm not just talking about the moxibustion topic. I just don't know how to address these issues and the talk page turn into huge meandering sections where nothing gets resolved. I am also having a hard time getting a hang of all the wiki rules since it seems hard to track down all the pages with the appropriate information.. thanks in advance for any assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soll22 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sol! I'm hopping into the discussion as I can. It seems that some editors on the talk page are acting frustrated, and their responses might be coming off abrupt or even a little aggressive. Hopefully you don't take that to heart! It may very well be due to work they're doing on other parts of the site, and not you. I haven't read over the entire talk page, so I don't know what other specific discussions you're referring to. Generally, as long as you represent the sources fairly by paraphrasing what they say without adding your own wording (or synthesizing multiple refs), you're doing things the right way. If there are sources we're using that aren't being handled that way, you might be best off creating a new section and cite specific examples of where the source says something distinctly different than the article. If this has already happened, perhaps you could point me to the section on the talk page. I don't have a ton of time, but I'll contribute where I can. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jess- first thank you so much for your enormous help up to now with the acupuncture page. It already sounds so much better, and is much more readable and organized. Secondly, I created another heading on the talk page about a citation that seems problematic to me. It is the last section on the page, regarding a citation from an article by Camille Mattuck. Whenever you get a chance, your input would be welcome.Soll22 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jess, I reread your explanation for removing the Medline Citation from the definition of Acupuncture, and I saw that you had an issue with unproven efficiency or efficacy. However, the source was a MEDRS, and the definition is intended in a biomedical sense. if a MEDRS source states in the updated current definition of acupuncture has general efficacy regarding health in the general sense, wouldn't that be acceptable? I just realized the current definition used in the entry is based on a citation of material from 1995. thx and feel free to erase my messages to clear up space here..I am totally not wanting to create a wall of writing here.. just confused and mildly frustrated with the whole processSoll22 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sol, note that your contributions may not be being ignored, there's several hundred thousand characters on the talk page making it tedious to wade through them all and by the time you're done, a new set has appeared. The vigor and effort being expended on both the main and talk pages is unusual and in my mind, unhelpful. On top of that, acupuncture is a very contentious topic in general because of the conflict between modern medicine and the prescientific roots of acupuncture. As I've said before, PPdd is, in my opinion, despite good intentions and civility going too far to one side and "debunking". This sort of task requires experienced editors to wade through, and will probably take months to clean up. The best thing you can do is to find the best sources to support your point, and edit accordingly - this takes a considerable amount of time, but will ultimately produce a better page which will stand up to even the strongest POV in either direction. Plus, you're no longer arguing against another editor, you're arguing against sources which is much less personal and requires far less "trust me" statements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's hard to wade through the different discussions on the page, and thank you for letting me know that you are aware of the points I have been trying to make. I don't mind waiting for a response and taking my time to come up with a good argument or source. And, a slower pace would be more than welcome on my part. I just, at this point, don't clearly understand what that an RS is, especially for acupuncture. When Jess commented about efficiency, and not being allowed to say that acupuncture is used for general health purposes, that is something I don't understand. Also, if I you see a question or comment I make, like the one posted above for Jess, if let me know you don't have an answer or are not sure, is more than enough, and I can pretty much guarantee that I won't jump into some crazy editing just because I think there's a loophole. As you can see I have not really touched the page. I notice that the furies descend anytime anyone touches that entry... thanksSoll22 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sol. I haven't been ignoring you here. There's just been a lot of movement on this and other pages I edit, and reading through it all (and responding to some) has been a monumental task to fit in an already fairly busy life. ;) To very briefly answer your question, reliable sources are hard to define generally, since they will vary per topic. The reliability of individual sources gets debated all the time at WP:RSN. A good question to ask is whether the source has a reputation for checking facts. Generally speaking, a source with a weighted interest on the subject can't be used for neutral information (i.e., for stating facts in wikipedia's voice). In this particular instance, that means we can't use proponents of acupuncture to state its efficacy.

After taking all those out, we're often left with a variety of sources which may not always converge on the same answer. (For a prime example, look at the Talk:Atheism page. Section 2, 3 and 6 (and all subsections) are just one big argument about the definition of the term as reported by dictionaries.) When this happens, we have to fairly represent all views according to their weight. In our case, we have a good number of sources which say Acupuncture is good at treating some things (like nausea) and lots of other sources which say it's not good at treating other stuff (like disease). Since proponents often claim that it's good at treating both, it would be unfair for us to represent that it broadly "promotes health", because this would mean to many readers that it "makes people healthy", which would imply it does all the things its proponents claim.

Instead, the best we can do is neutrally state that "Acupuncture is the process of X. Proponents have claimed this results in Y. Studies have shown Z". Does that make more sense than the way I worded it earlier? Again, I'm trying to juggle lots at once, so forgive me if I seem a bit frazzled! All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All at Sol, MJ let me know if you'd like me to continue this elsewhere.

I've tried asking PPdd to slow down, and haven't really been heeded. Unfortunately, editors with the best of intentions are generally given wide latitude. PPdd is editing beyond his experience in my opinion, but learns from criticisms and does not edit war and thus the community will give him wide latitude. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of solution beyond asking everyone to take a voluntary break to let the dust settle and ruminate on what's been done and what needs to be done. Haven't quite got there yet, and I don't see it as necessary or worthwhile until I've actually finished at least a good portion of Celestial Lancets.

If you haven't read them yet, you should read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS from beginning to end, carefully. A reliable source is any source published by an agency with a reputation for fact checking, and/or authored by a reputed scholar. Context is important. Because acupuncture has had considerable scholarly resarch done on it, both as a historical phenomena and as a medical intervention, we should essentially stick with scholarly sources. This is why I object to the use of webpages even for seemingly minor items - if it's an uncontested fact amoung advocates, doctors or historians, it should be easy to find a book or article to verify this fact. If it's a historical fact, then historical books or journal articles are preferred over medical ones (there are exception but they should be obvious - a journal article by Edzard Ernst exploring the ascientific roots of acupuncture would probably be acceptable as a history reference, say to note that acupuncuture isn't based on scientific reasoning about biology but when exploring how acupuncture did develop over the centuries, Joseph Needham writing in a scholarly book would be better). When it comes to claims of efficacy, there's a fine line and a thick one. The thick one is between modern claims that have been investigated and reported in a secondary source - a meta-analysis or literature review such as the Cochrane Collaboration. Pubmed is a great place to look for sources like this. The fine line comes when describing what practitioners believe. When it comes to historical (i.e. dead) practitioners, it is OK to use Needham. When it comes to contemporary practitioners, it is better to stick to Cochrane again because it describes what practitioners believe and tests it. In general, the more scholarly the better. Acupuncture is a bit problematic because it makes claims, or appears to make claims, that violate the scientific view of the body - qi, invisible tracts and anatomical structures that lack any known biological correlates, diagnostic tests that have no relation to modern medicine and so forth. For these sorts of claims, WP:FRINGE applies, meaning you are permitted to cite lower-quality sources that make these points, but generally they should be attributed ("X, a member of CSI, has stated that qi is an absurd holdover of a prescientific culture that has gained adherents through fallacious appeals to fairness and the exoticness of Oriental culture to Western audiences" - a statement I'm sure has been made somewhere).

So basically - start with google scholar, google books or pubmed. Try to identify the best and most recent sources on the topic. If you find an interesting reference that touches on a topic that is currently contested, look it up, mine the initial paper or book for sources. There are some "classics" like Needham's work that probably aged well, but others may not. Once you get past "foundational" texts like Needham, you probably want to get into scholarly tomes with a more focussed approach. Once I'm done with Needham, I'm going to read Kim Taylor's Chinese Medicine in Early Communist China, The Evolution of Chinese Medicine by Asaf Goldschmidt, Needles, herbs, gods, and ghosts by Linda Barnes and possibly Felix Mann's Acupuncture though that one is almost certainly extremely dated. Each offers information on one aspect or slice of acupuncture, and the page is better for having these excellent, highly scholarly sources that no-one can argue shouldn't be used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS change to Acupuncture

Hi Jess,

Regarding this edit, I would prefer the previous version. WP:FURTHER suggests the further reading section not duplicate books used as a reference. In my experience, when you've got multiple citations to different pages of a book (or many books, as in this case) the most logical cascade is footnotes then references, with a separate further reading section. Clicking on the footnote takes you to the appropriate note, then clicking on the within-footnote bluelink takes you to the actual reference. Putting the references in the further reading section muddles the two. What do you think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I usually prefer standardizing and consolidating the lower headings; Personally, I've never liked using 'References' in 90%+ of articles and something different in a handful of others. That's just my preference. Other editors may disagree - though I'd argue my opinion is the right one :P. I don't think we should be "creative" with names for no reason, and in this case I don't think we need three sections. All our refs are (or should be) inline citations, so the other works listed should be "Further Reading" material. If there are duplicates, I think it would be better to prune the duplicates than split it up as it was. That is to say, what's the difference between "Further Reading" and "References" in the old version? Both end up being works the reader can pursue to better understand the topic. If they are the same sort of content, they should be grouped together. That said, if you feel strongly the other way, you can revert me; I won't like it, but I won't object :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

But the division serves a purpose - "Footnotes" is a list of sources that is either specific to a journal article, or a specific page in a book. References is for whole books cited on a page that is referred to multiple times, on different pages - if you're citing pages 1, 17, 98 and 312, it's not necessary to duplicate the cite book template four times, and it's not helpful for the reader to have a single citation to a book with a pages = field of 1, 17, 98 and 312 because they won't know which pages apply to which citation. And the purpose of further reading is a list of lengthy, pertinent sources that aren't cited in the page itself. On pages with only newspaper and journal articles as references, you don't need a Footnotes/References split because all citations are to discrete to short, single articles. On pages with articles and full books cited multiple times, you need a way to manage multiple citations to the same book but different pages within the book. And further reading shouldn't dupilcate the references section, because any book that's integrated as a reference shouldn't appear in further. Though it does create differences between pages, there is a reason for those differences. I struggled with it too, until I had to work on my first really long page - satanic ritual abuse - and that proved to be the best way to manage the references section. The only other alternative I tried was citing the full book in the first citation that appeared then doing name/year/page #, but readers can't find the full citation without a manual search. I see the system as perhaps slightly awkward, but it makes sense if you realize the intent behind it - which you only get when you've had to work with dozens to hundreds of citations that include multiple references within many different books.

That whole thing should make sense, if not then let me know and I'll try to explain it again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, my opinion is only personal preference. I do understand the problem being addressed, however, I think in this specific case, placing the references in further reading (despite the MOS suggestion not to) would be acceptable, per both its suggestive rather than prescriptive wording, and if nothing else WP:IAR. I also think we have few enough that citing them in full in the footnotes would be acceptable too. With that said, and while I would like to consolidate the 3 sections into 2, my primary concern is in standardizing the headings. It seems you'd still like the 3 sections, so I'm going to bow to your judgment on the issue, and try just renaming the titles instead. I think this is a good standard to work from: Pig-faced women#Notes and references. I'll boldly make that edit now. Let me know if you still have any objections to it. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's my preference, I have further preferences but it's really just nitpicking. Much as I like to pick nits, I think perhaps it's time to put down the stick I'm so fond of. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

help me

please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHPIDS and tell me what else need to enhance it and how to add logo.

adopt me for wiki articles if possible

--Aswanii (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aswanii. While I'm happy to be helpful when I can, I don't currently have enough time to devote to adoption, and it would be a disservice to you if I took on that role. However, you should check out the WP:Adopt-a-user page, which tells you how to go about being adopted by an experienced editor. It also has a list of editors who have enough time to take on new users. As for PHPIDS, you can add an image by finding an image on the site, or uploading a new one, and linking to it like this: [[Image:ImageName.jpg]]. There are other options too. You can check out the code (by clicking on "edit") for other pages which have images to see some examples of how to use them. If you have any other specific quesitons, I'd be happy to help as far as I can. I would definitely encourage you to read up on adoption, and give that a shot. Wikipedia can seem daunting at first, but once you get the hang of things it'll seem like a breeze. Enjoy yourself! All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting..

I don't recall making any test changes or experimenting in any way. The changes I made were meant to fix the article. But since wikipedia is now a sounding board of how christians should receive homosexuality I'll not bother reverting it back and I will tell the my church the error of their ways.70.15.191.119 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

warning on personal comments

If you have anything further to say about me, please use my talk page. Any more personal commentary about me in article talk space and I will take you to ANI. enough. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this. In fact, I already posted to your user page with the more personal details of the issue prior to your comment here. You're of course more than welcome to take it to ANI if you'd like, but I see no issue with the content I placed on the Talk:Pseudoscience page, and the next time you refer to my mother on an article talk, I'll be happy to calmly point you to WP:Civil again. Please just stop edit warring while discussion is ongoing, and keep things civil, and you should know from past experience that we won't have issues working together. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm pissed at the moment, so I'm spitting a bit. best I take the rest of the day off. and I didn't refer to your mother, except to point out that I am not her, which I think should be self-evident to everyone involved. --Ludwigs2 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I probably won't be returning to the Pseudoscience page for the next day or so anyway, so I think this would be a good time to catch a breather and see what other input we get. I already posted to the talk page suggesting you respond to my sourcing queries, but that can probably wait until then. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Same vandal, different names

I noticed you just undid the same vandal's work at acupunture as has been going on with the same editor at TCM. There are a bunch of names doing the same kind of vandalism. At first I thought they were different people, but the deletion of the same content edits is being done, anonymously and with editor names that have only vandalism in their contribs. What should be done in such cases? PPdd (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• At least these editors - Ringmybelly, Mubong, Meirish. I forgot the other names and anon IPs being used, but the vandalism looks like they are all one and the same person.

Well, not having checked the articles in question, there are a couple options for handling the type of situation you're describing. If the vandalism is persistent from one user, then WP:AIV is the place to go. If a particular page is being vandalized by various users consistently, then you want to WP:RfPP the page, which should stop the abuse. If you have reason to believe that multiple accounts are being abused, then you need to request a checkuser. If you're not sure what to do, but want community input, then WP:ANI is the place to go. Hope that helps. If you need me to actually look into the issue myself and recommend something specific, I can... but it'll have to wait until it's not 1:00am on a week day :) Enjoy the night!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Its my first vandalism mass attack experience. I will let it go a little more (give them more rope) before any notifications, so that they have a chance to leave more of an indisputable trail as to what is really going on. They all appeared at the same time, and in the context of irreegular behavior by two alt med pushers, one of whom is very unlikely to be involved. PPdd (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Waiting before notifying them of abuse of multiple accounts is a good idea, but don't revert their stuff without warning them at all. For clear vandalism, you should be giving progressively higher warning templates at each instance, and if they're edit warring over the same change, then give them the {{uw-3rr}} template. These are important because if they are editing in good faith, but just unaware that what they're doing is against policy, it alerts them that they should stop and ask questions. And, if they're editing in bad faith, it sets you up to be able to report them to WP:AIV (or elsewhere) and have them blocked for abuse. If you're not warning them now, then they'll keep the behavior up for a while, and we'll just have to warn them later (instead of blocking) when the issue is finally reported. Twinkle is useful for issuing those kinds of warnings, if you don't have it already. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't use Twinkle since I only have internet explorer. When I once tried to install another browser, I had lots of problems (maybe from my antivirus software?). What is a good opening template? It is clear and sophisticated vandalism, so he/they know the ropes, but your suggestion to treat it as if they are not obviously experienced is a good one. PPdd (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ick! Internet Explorer! :P Well, there are 3 templates I use commonly: uw-vandalism1, uw-delete1 and uw-unsourced1. For a level 2 warning, it would be uw-vandalism2, uw-delete2 and so on. You can go up to level 4, then report it to WP:AIV. If they're persistently making the same change to the same page, uw-3rr is most appropriate, and the report would go to WP:AN3. For users which are brand new, I usually try to give them the benefit of the doubt and post a welcome template first before issuing any warnings. I like Template:WelcomeMenu, but there's also Welcomelaws and Welcomevandal for more targeted information. Hope that helps!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. WP:UTM might be of interest to you as well. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read how to use the tags. The vandalism has sprung up suddenly and has been fast and furious. The advert by User:71.131.180.27 here[3] and here[4] was rapidly followed by a series of less than 3RR edits by new-single-edit-editors, all similar in focus. Deletion of RS content Acupuncture images, flying squirrel feces, human placenta, ass hide glue pellet, and snake oil image and content: By User:Mubong here[5] and here[6]. By User: Sschram deleting eating “raw” flying squirrel feces here[7]. By User: Meirish here[8]. By User: 71.34.98.149 here[9]. By User: Huangqi01 here[10]. By User: Petalumana here[11], here[12]. By User: Brendan.mattson here[13], here[14], here[15], and here[16]. By User: 76.102.5.245 here[17], and here[18], and here[19]. By 76.178.243.228 here[20]. By Tgarran here[21]. PPdd (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think this is the same user (which, based on some of the last links you provided, is reasonably likely), then you should take the issue to WP:ANI and request a checkuser. The tags, themselves, are fairly easy to use... simply place them on the user's page after reverting, such as: {{uw-vandalism1}}. If they repeat it, place a higher level warning, such as: {{uw-vandalism2}}, and so on. If you've been issuing these tags, or a particular user's contribution history indicates he's probably a single-use account for vandalism, then report the issue to WP:AIV instead, and the user will be blocked. It seems like page protection is also in order for Traditional Chinese Medicine. I'll file a RfPP now, but unfortunately I only really have time to do that tonight since I'm headed out the door in a few minutes. If you need more immediate advise tonight that ANI can't provide, User:Dougweller is a pretty nice guy with some experience who might be around to help out. As a final note, if you do post to ANI, some of the first few links which you've labeled as an advert aren't as clear. If you do post about them, I'd suggest either providing context demonstrating why it's more than a simple content dispute, and/or post to the talk page explaining why the content is inappropriate first. Off to WP:RfPP! All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Report filed. The article should be protected shortly. If it's protected in a state with the content removed, please ask the acting admin to undo the most recent removal to restore the page to its previous version. Ok, off to the real world for a while! All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will use the tags in the future. PPdd (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I put a note on the talk page, which already had a vandalism warning, then I put a 3RR warning, and then there were two more deletions here[22], and here[23]

Although “these” are new editor(s), they appear to have no interest in improving Wikipedia except to censor images of professional women from they describe in edit summaries as “alluring” so “should be replaced by an image of someone in a lab coat”. Despite repeated warnings, and 3RR warnings, they continue. PPdd (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Book about Symfony, CakePHP etc

Hi Jess. I noticed you deleted the book "Building PHP Applications with Symfony, CakePHP, and Zend Framework" from bibliographies of relative frameworks. You said something about Lithium and advertising. Note that this book has about 20 pages appendix about Lithium and this is (one of the) the first book references of it. Even if you disagree with that entry (what can be understood), why the hell did you delete the all the other bibliographies?! The book IS ABOUT Symfony, CakePHP and Zend Framework. And http://phpframeworks.org is the official website for it, the one providing the source code for examples. I often heard about Wiki editors being overzealous in deleting content, but I hoped not to experience it. Sincerely, 89.78.154.213 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Bartosz Porębski

The Bibliography section is intended for references which were used to construct the article. As such, a substantial portion of the article should be referenced to the book you're attempting to add. However, none of the articles are. Instead, what you're trying to add is called an external link. We have specific policies on external links (some of which are detailed in the link I just provided). The book you're attempting to add appears to be a commercial ebook with no apparent notability, and as such does not really fit the type of content we want filling up our external links for those pages. You are, however, welcome to discuss your proposal on the talk pages of the various articles, and if you can gain consensus for the link, then it will be added back in. In the meantime, I see that you're probably new to wikipedia, and as such I'd highly recommend glancing at WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Trolling in the "Jinn" Article

Hi I would like to bring your attention to the troll editing occurring on the "Jinn" article page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn).

98.192.200.200 has been continuously incorporating false information in this thread.

He or she keeps inserting the passage: "They have the ability to change their shape, and even possess living beings" into the article which is patently false. Firstly the source Al-Mu’minun: 97-98 is not a direct Quranic reference at all. A Google search of this reference leads to this website: http://www.islamawareness.net/Jinn/fatwa_secrets.html. In that site the reference (falsely sourced as from the Quran) states that "“And say: My Lord! I seek refuge in Thee from suggestions of the evil ones. And I seek refuge in Thee, my Lord, lest they be present with me.” (Al-Mu’minun: 97-98)". This source does not support the statement that is being falsely incorporated in the article

It has been brought to my attention that these edits are a result of a "trolling" attempt on the "Gamefaqs" forum http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/58453211.

Please take action as you see fit to maintain the integrity of this article

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayne1850 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Briefly scanning the link you provided, I don't see any indication of "trolling" of the article; I see a couple people discussing the article on an unrelated site. Consequently, I'm not sure there's anything to be done right now. If information is being added to the article which is unsourced, then it should be removed. However, if they want to bring sources to the article which introduce new perspectives, then that would be a good thing. If you think there really is a deeper issue, which can't be solved by normal editing or protection, then the best place to address it would be WP:ANI. I really don't think that's necessary, though.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

>Thank you for the reply. In reference to the trolling assertion I would like to note that the first change in the article occured directly at 18:14, 21 March 2011 which coincides with its immediate use in post number 42 by user "Shado" at 18:27:25 AM 3/21/2011. Note that after the following edit user Giacomo Hawkins (on both wikipedia and gamefaqs) requested a citation which was hastily and incorrectly provided. Also note post #51 from user Shado: "Let's assume for a second, that it was me who altered it. Even though that ISP is from a place I don't live at, let's pretend it is. And let's also assume that Jinn possession is a load of crap, even from the Muslim perspective (which I have already proven to be false). Wouldn't that imply that god_of_toast was wrong about Wikipedia ensuring crap doesn't filter through on important topics? Just another reason why I think him linking to Wikipedia was a dumb move". In this arguement Shado was seen criticising wikipedia in post #17 before utilising it as a source meer minutes after the article was editted by an unknown user at post #42. A hastily selected source was added after Giacomo Hawkins post on Gamefaqs @ post # 44. Before Shado poses a hypothetical stating that if this information is wrong then wikipedia is "dumb" source to use (#51). Very unusual and suspect dont you think? Secondly I agree that other-viewpoints and perspectices would be a boon to this article however the passage and source provided is not trying to achieve that. Firstly the citation provided is a reference to a Quranic verse that simply does not exist. There is no verse Al-Mu’minun: 97-98 in the Quran. There is a Surat Al-Mu'minūn where verse 023:97 and 023:98 state that "And say, "My Lord, I seek refuge in You from the incitements of the devils, And I seek refuge in You, my Lord , lest they be present with me" (Sahih International Quran - can be seen @ http://quran.com/023/97-103. As you can see this does not in any way reference or support in any way the comment being eddited into the wikipedia article that "They have the ability to change their shape, and even possess living beings". As you can see this edit by an anonymous user is purely vandalism. I would ask that you lock this thread in its original form (i.e. before the edit by the anonymous user) until he or she can provide a reputable source to back up their assertion Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayne1850 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of cquote

Figured I should explain--if you look at Template:cquote, you can see that it is designed for pull quotes. Pull quotes, by definition, must be a quotation of something else that is in the article (not for quoting things from outside WP) stylistically; furthermore, the purpose is to catch the reader's eye or pull them in, something that we don't do in encyclopedia articles. MOS:QUOTE specifies that we should use Template:blockquote for long citations. I think that you were right to move over the detailed information, however; I thought the general point might be enough, but I think your way is clearer. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain downgrade of eclipse of Darwinism

Hi, you recently downgraded The eclipse of Darwinism from class B to class C. I don't really object to the downgrade per se, but I would like you to explain what about the article did not meet the class B criteria as that would help me improve the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the B-class criteria. There were a couple things that caught my eye. Primarily, the citations stood out to me. A B-class article needs to be "suitably referenced", which generally implies more than 10 citations from 5 authors. The citations should also be more specific; I see the article usually cites one to two references per paragraph, usually at the end. Ideally, refs should specifically refer to the exact page or excerpt which applies to the content, so having the references interspersed within the paragraphs would often be appropriate. The citations should also be more diverse; The article has 9 paragraphs, 6 of which are cited by ref (2) and (7) alone. Aside from the refs, there are a couple things which could perhaps be improved (or at least looked into). The article is missing supporting materials, a see also section, {{main article}} templates for the sections, internal links for some terms, and so on. Those aren't generally required until GA, but they're worth doing. As a result of some of the sourcing, and due to a bit of the chosen wording, I'm a bit dubious about the neutrality or verifiability of some parts of the article. For instance, the tag I added to the article earlier was for a sentence which appeared to be making a point about the "immorality of Evolution". A large reason for that is that the sentence uses weasel words ("many naturalists... In addition, some felt"). Those sorts of statements really should be attributed. On top of that, the article should provide a summary of current Evolutionary thought, even if only a sentence or two with links to the appropriate articles. Looking the article over again, it now seems to me that it was written with the intent of being neutral, but doesn't give a balanced overview of the topic, purely by omission. Anyway, I have to run now... but if I have the time later, I might even look into these issues on my own. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To avoid duplication. I will respond to your comments on the article talk page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made a series of edits that I hope address your concerns, and responded to your specific comments on the talk page. I believe the article is now much improved, and I was hoping you would now reconsider your downgrade, respond with more comments, or both. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have completed another round of edits to expand and clarify the article. I believe that it now clearly meets at least the class B criteria. I will wait a little while for further comments from you, but if you don't have any I am going to restore the article to class B status. Thanks for your helpful comments. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no objections. Very nice work! I'll pop back in and reclass the article. :) Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner - a lot going on, both on-site and off. You've done a great job, though! All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I had to involve you, but AP is getting completely out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I wouldn't have personally gone to ANI yet (I think the editors there are right that AN3 would have been a better first base), but I've lodged my support for a topic ban anyway. Thanks for letting me know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Side note, I responded to your and Bug discussion on ANI referecing AP's "facts" The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I did see that. I wasn't going to respond, since it doesn't relate to the AP issue. Just to be clear, I don't doubt Dawkins said something like that if cherry picked, but to use Dawkins to support AP's view is to intentionally truncate his words to distort his meaning. It's the same thing he's doing with the talkorigins ref, which explicitly states that macroevolution is an outdated term which means speciation in biology, and that speciation has been observed. However, AP ignores this section, even when its pointed out to him, in favor of quoting an above passage out of context to support his view. Honestly, this sort of distortion is a little disturbing to me. To use the talkorigins ref to support his idea that macroevolution is unobservable, when it is a page devoted explicitly to debunking the idea, is being willfully belligerent and intentionally disruptive. TBH, that behavior caused me to start questioning his good faith. Anyway, thanks for pointing out where the Dawkins thing comes from. :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, completely my primary background is in Anthropological/Sociological views of religion but have quite a bit back ground in Biological Anthropology. Having Studied both I am well versed by default in this junk science. Its sad in lot of ways in situations like this but makes for Fascinating Research papers that studying religious response to evolution>I'll be honest I wanted to hear Bugs final statement on the issue and felt obliged to let you know too :) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

IP Vandal

I hope you didn't mind that I reverted the stuff left behind by the IP vandal on your user page. I guess you had reported him just before I did. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course not! I appreciate you looking out :) He got another 6-month block, so I think it's safe to say we'll see him again in November.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on acupuncture. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ludwigs2 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you really are something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, this is dangerously close to an abuse of warning tags, which is disruptive behavior. It's also dangerously close to harassment, which you've been blocked for previously. Considering the lengths I'm going to both be civil in my interactions with you, and to make every one of my actions as transparent as possible, some amount of respect from your side would be appreciated. I'm really quite unhappy with how I have to have this conversation with you every single time we interact on an article. Can't you just work collaboratively with me from the start, and save me the trouble of having to ask you every time? I'd really appreciate it. Seriously.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's editing seems very odd at the moment. What justification for example could there possibly be for this kind of disruptive edit? [24] Was it an error? Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

L2 never does anything by accident. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I've warned him for it. This behavior is blatantly disruptive, and it really has to stop. :/   — Jess· Δ♥ 10:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That message was deleted with an edit summary threatening WP:WQA. It will be interesting to see what happens when the arbitration clerk posts on his page. Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that worked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice inre: pseudoscience arbitration ruling

Mann_jess. This notice is simply to remind you that acupuncture falls under the broad pseudoscience arbitration ruling to be found here, which places the page under more restrictive editing requirements. Your recent actions on that article and talk page may be subject to sanction or restriction under that ruling; in particular, you appear to have been failing to observe proper talk page procedures, may have engaged in tendentious editing, and may be supporting the misuse of sources to introduce misinformation into the article.

This is simply a notice, as well as a request that you take somewhat greater care with your actions on this article than you might in a more relaxed environment. You may delete it at your leisure. thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, that I happen to disagree with your content proposal doesn't make me a tendentious editor. I have addressed you cordially and in every step in adherence to policy. Improperly warning me on a variety of issues for which I haven't even come close to violating, simply because you don't like that we disagree is wildly inappropriate. I presume you will disagree, and so I welcome you to invite other experienced editors to review the situation, and would happily accept constructive criticism on my behavior from an uninvolved user. Considering the lengths I've gone to work collaboratively with you, I think you'll find this won't happen.

Most strikingly, your behavior in this matter is a form of blatant harassment. You've been blocked for harassment in the past, indeed, more than once, so I'd highly suggest heeding my advice to take a breather, and simply engage criticisms constructively on the article talk page, instead of seeking out ways to berate editors with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, my advice to you thus far seems to have fallen on deaf ears, so I'm going to note this here and on your talk page, so there's no possible ambiguity or confusion on my intentions. If you continue to improperly warn editors for behavior they haven't remotely engaged in, continue to harass editors who disagree with you, continue to edit war, continue to edit other users' talk page comments, or any other behavior in opposition to guideline which you've been repeatedly warned to avoid, I will take this matter to a noticeboard. I don't want to do that - legitimately I don't - so please just work collaboratively from here on out, and we won't have any trouble. I'd suggest refreshing yourself on the talk page guidelines, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:EW, and WP:TE so you don't inadvertently fall into any pitfalls. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

acupuncture

Jess, let's take this silly point off article talk and stop going around in circles on it. let me summarize our difference of opinion, so that we can drop this and move on to more interesting issues

• You have a general objection to the revision because you think that it has changed the weight balance. you've pointed to one specific concern (the removal of the list of claims), but as far as I can tell, the rest of your objection is just a 'feeling' that you haven't really gotten to discussing in detail. However, you believe that this 'feeling' is sufficient to revert all edits I made to the lead in bulk, and to insist that all future discussion be restricted to subpages until your 'feeling' is satisfied.
• I can understand the one specific claim you made (I don't really agree with it, but we could discuss that), but I can't understand your 'feeling' or why you refuse to take a more nuanced approach to the discussion. for instance I don't think you object to the change to the first line, and I don't understand why you feel the need to revert it with the other things I did. You'll notice that the last time I reverted OM I reverted selectively retaining what I though he was correct on and reverting only what I disagreed with (OM did this, I did this). That's the way this should be approached. The "I don't like something some I'm going to revert everything" approach is rude and aggressive, and if done excessively becomes wp:tendentious editing, because it really interferes with page development.

I would suggest you start taking a more nuanced approach (which will make things here much smoother) and avoid your current aggressive approach (which is just making things unpleasant for no good reason). That, however, is up to you. Now let's drop it and get back to discussing content. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I've come to the conclusion that you're not actually reading what I'm writing. It's no wonder you think my objections are so spurious given that you haven't taken the time to read them. I stated very explicitly, and more than once, that the revision has multiple problems as a whole, citing specific examples, and that the individual changes which are non-contentious should be applied individually. Indeed, I said this in my May 4th reply, "...This is in accord with WP:BRD, and is how this dispute should be handled. The appropriate route is not to "keep the new proposal until there's consensus to revert it", it's to revert the proposal and discuss the reason to add it... I raised valid concerns above regarding weight which must be addressed. I'm in agreement with the first sentence change. That said, the entire "copy edit" change should be undone, with individual changes applied which are either non-contentious or with consensus support". On top of your other May 4th comment, claiming I hadn't raised weight concerns previously (to which I replied, providing diffs), I'm hesitant to continue repeating myself over and over again.

Once again... I don't have a problem with the first line being included. However, since you've been reverted by a multitude of editors, who have raised very real issues with your proposal which are both founded in policy, and have apparently achieved consensus, the correct course of action now is to discuss all these changes prior to instituting them. This is in accord with WP:BRD, among other policies, and is a perfectly reasonable request. Regarding discussion with me... at this point, I've given all the warnings and reminders of policy I feel necessary. By now I expect you to work collaboratively, and take the criticisms and suggestions of other editors into account. There's absolutely nothing more that needs to be said. With that in mind, I'd appreciate it if you kept this dispute (and other improper warnings) off my talk page, and concentrated instead on constructive behavior. I'm happy to work collaboratively with you on the article talk page, and our discussion from this point forward should remain there, focused on article improvement. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

again, Jess, I literally defy you to provide diffs of editors raising 'very real issues'. What I've seen on that page is perhaps 3 or 4 people (including yourself) say it's a POV edit, with no explanation or justification. that's just pure wp:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. The only thing close to a reasonable discussion has been with respect to the removed list of acupuncture's claims and the the numbers (which is in a paragraph I didn't revise). reverting repeatedly per wp:IDONTLIKEIT is wp:Page ownership.

again, I defy you to provide links pointing to reasonable concerns that aren't reducible to wp:IDONTLIKEIT. When you can't, then you will realize that your behavior is inappropriate, and we can move on to proper discussions, correct? --Ludwigs2 18:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• May 2nd, "reduces scientific criticism"
• May 3rd, "WP:Weight of efficacy and scientific support"
• May 3rd, "doesn't convey scientific standing. Not an improvement"
• May 3rd, "WP:Weight: Doesn't reflect sources"
• May 4th, "removed adverse effects, based on high quality RS"
• May 4th, "agree with above. adverse effects are necessary"
• May 4th, "clarification of opposition. proposal doesn't summarize article or sources"
• May 4th, "list of 8 sources representing material being removed from lead. removal as 'unsourced' is unwarranted."
• May 4th, "agree with above 2 objections. paragraph is whitewash of criticisms"
• May 5th, "publication bias should not have been removed, and suggestion for improvement."
• May 6th, "WP:Weight of criticisms and adverse effects again. opened subpage for proposals."
• May 6th, "response to claim that I've never referenced WP:Weight. Summarize a few objections, using example of adverse effects."
• May 6th, "first para is non-neutral - compares TCM to western medicine incorrectly. agree with comments on adverse effects."
• May 6th, "agree with above objection. proposal is non-neutral due in part to false comparison."

Your insistence on including the proposal have been opposed by every single editor on the page, with the sole exception of a brand new ip. The above objections come from myself, Orangemarlin, LeadSongDog, Snowded, WLU and Noren. MathSci and Hans Adler additionally opposed inclusion prior to discussion. Your assertions are flatly incorrect. I also asked that you stop posting about this issue on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you respected that request. Please keep (collaborative) discussion on the article talk page. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I get rather tired of Luddie's obsession with my editing. Of course, I have three or four FA's, a few GA's, etc, because I focus on the project, like you. Thank you for responding to the sophistry. However, shouldn't this be discussed on Talk:Acupuncture? Knowing the usual MO around here, this conversation will be ignored on the article talk page, and we'll have to start again.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

lol - jess, did you actually read these links before posting them? All of them (with the exception of two, I think) say exactly the same thing: "I think this changes the weight on scientific criticism, and I think that's bad". With the exception of those two, not one of them makes any effort to explain what's bad, or why it's bad - they are just all wp:IDONTLIKEIT. the two that do make valid points are on the issue I noted above. I mean, let's look at the first one,[25] which only says "The one listed above is fairly inconsequential, other changes appear to attempt to reduce scientific criticism" - that sounds like an reasoned argument to you? shall I go through each of the others and make the sam observation? You've just basically provided a whole bunch of diffs that prove the point I was making. why would you do that? it seems like a really odd move on your part.

Plus, you're conveniently forgetting about Hans, Middle 8, and Noren, all of whom supported these changes in whole or in part. In fact, you linked to one of Noren's approving statements above, which makes me think again that you didn't even bother to read your own diffs. weird.

Marlie, sweetie, I wasn't saying anything about you at all, so I have no idea what you mean. I posted this here because the main topic doesn't really have anything to do with content development, and is better handled in user talk, so that the article talk age doesn't get congested with useless personal stuff. thanks for taking an interest, though. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your continued posting here is inappropriate, and your assessment of the provided diffs is incorrect. Aside from that, the fact is that consensus has formed that your proposal has problems which must be addressed. Fix those problems, and take this back to the article talk page. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

unh-hunh. gotcha pegged, and you know it. Whatever, we'll deal with this over in article talk. As an off-hand comment, though, I'll admit I wish I could meet someone up here smart enough to have a decent dispute with. This endless task of making people look at the stuff they systematically refuse to see is (frankly) boring. but I suppose someone has to do it. --Ludwigs2 06:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks on Jess. Wow, you have no honor. Jess is actually treating you with respect. And continued drama. Nevertheless, the constant complaints about what editors have done to the article you own belong on that article talk page. Defend your edits there. Moving it here is, well, manipulative. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have no honor - never considered it a really high value. And no, personal discussions of this nature belong in user talk, not article space. and whatever - I have zero interest in your opinion, because I have no respect for you as an editor. are we clear now? --Ludwigs2 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above post seemed to be another of Ludwigs2's personal attacks on another user. I redacted it using his own template. His reaction in the edit summary contained a threat to report me on ANI (which administrator would take such a frivolous report seriously?). At least on ArbCom pages these kinds of attacks have been removed by clerks. I specifically noted in my edit summary that Man Jess had asked Ludwigs2 to stay off this page; he has not shown the courtesy to honour that request.Mathsci (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You were mentioned at WP:ANI#User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Creation Science Link Edit

Man Jess, Can you explain why the links you deleted didn't seem appropriate? If your reason/s are adequate, where do you suggest I put them? I will be happy to listen. By the way, this article used to have 5 external links to some of the same websites back in 2005. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

On top of that, what is POV wording? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wekn. If the links were removed since 2005, then it was probably for a reason, and it was potentially discussed and in agreement with consensus. If so, I would support that consensus. WP:EL details some info regarding external links; Not all links are appropriate, particularly those to forums, sites meant only to push an agenda, and those with little to no notability. Furthermore, the external links section shouldn't be written in "debate-style", as it was. The article should appropriately sum up all notable views on the topic, and the external links are intended for providing further info on those views, not, for instance, as a platform to "respond to the article". POV wording, generally, is wording which presents an editor's point of view disproportionate to what is warranted in the topic. In this case, phrases like "answering problems in this article", "evolutionist website", "a site that takes the evolutionary perspective", and so forth, fall into this category. All in all, this should be discussed on the article talk page, as with any content-related disagreements. If you have any other questions, feel free to post them there. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The only forum I cited was published from the evolutionary (by most people's reasoning, scientific) perspective, and even then the forum is only part of their website. You may have a point, however, about the reason the past edits were made (I'll look into that). I'm sorry for using POV wording (although it wasn't intentional, which is only visible if you could read my thoughts at the time. I think the best place for this discussion is on the article's talk page. I'll go through editing which external links to post (w/out any wording) next time. Before posting them, I'll paste a list of various prominent links for editors to discuss adding. I will consider adding other links to the list at request. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Jess, it has just been a while since I have edited links, so I had to go back and change from standard html to wiki markup. FGitz Agoodking (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. No worries :) Welcome again. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page messages

Jess - You left a message on my talk page and said that if I wanted to respond I should respond from my talk page because you're monitoring it. However, I don't know how to respond to your message from my talk page. I've clicked around on it and looked at all the links but I don't see a way to respond back to you. Please let me know how to do so. Thanks.Rsay3 (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rsay3. You can respond just the same way you've done so here. Just click on "edit" on your talk page, and then type in the content you want on that page. You can indent your response by placing a colon (:) before your text. Two colons (::) will indent twice, and so on. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I now fully understand

I know you warned me about the strong resistance at Atheism:Talk. I now understand completely. I don't know how you guys put up with this for so long. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It gets worse. If you have a full day to waste, check the archives. Long ago I realized that I had better things to do with my time than quibble over such a small wording change. After all, the current wording is acceptable. It's just not good.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I briefly looked at the archives. You're right. Urggg. To be honest, it is not really the lead that bothers me as much as the "rationale" for choosing it. Oh well. I'll follow your lead and find other better things to do. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I spent months discussing it in the past. My last run at the topic appears to have been last year, and since then I've been much happier! Ah well. Good choice moving on to better things. See you around :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Minority

I would ask that you re-visit the article to see that your initial concerns have been addresses. The unsourced new article that you first nominated has now been expanded and sourced since that nomination. It is my thought that we do toss what can be easily fixed simply because the article was incomplete. You asked for sources that adressed the film drectly and in detail: Glasgow Herald addresses the film and its controversy directly and in detail,[26] as do articles in Yorkshire Post.[27] [28] [29] That the film has then made it into the enduring record is futher evidence of its notability. Perhaps better for the project and its readers that we continue to improve the article rather than toss it because an earlier version was flawed. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked them over enough to make an informed judgement. Indeed, two of the sources provided are subscription-only, so my ability to judge the current sourcing is hindered. I'll also note that the source I originally provided is not reliable, and even if it were, is only a mere mention without establishing notability. That leaves us with 1 source, which was published in a newspaper before the initial airing of the film, and regards only controversy surrounding the filmmakers, not the documentary itself. That source alone doesn't pass WP:FN. As I said in the PROD nomination, I think this film may very well be notable, but I'm discouraged by the lack of sourcing to 1) establish that, and 2) provide a reasonable amount of content for an article beyond stub-status. The two subscription-only sources may address those objections, but since I can't see them, I can't change my vote.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears the article has been expanded even further since I last looked at it, and now has a few more sources (including another newspaper mention), so I have amended my vote. I'm still dubious about sourcing, but I'm more comfortable with the state of the article now than its unsourced stub status a few days ago. Thanks for the help on this.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsideration of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

CALC

I'm glad to see you've come around, but just in case you have residual concerns, you might want to have a gander at wp:CALC. In short, arithmetic isn't wp:OR. Cheers,LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't "come around", exactly. I've maintained the same position the whole time; the wording is undoubtedly correct, but not precisely verifiable. I'm not sure WP:CALC applies in this case, as the issue isn't the math, but the conclusion drawn from the math. That it is statistically improbable for something to be there doesn't give us the right to strengthen the wording of the sources (which themselves are already based on those calculations) to say it isn't. My hesitance in suggesting a change is only due to my inability to come up with an alternate wording; "unlikely" is incorrect, "vanishingly small probability" understates the case and is cumbersome, "0% chance" is awkward, etc. "Contains none" is the most accurate of the proposals, so I guess it'll have to stay... but the sourcing for it is still lacking.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, that's where editorial judgement comes in. It's the reason we need wp:IAR as policy. Paraphrasing to avoid wp:COPYVIOs is necessary anyhow, so we rarely get sources that support exactly how we say things (unless they are public domain or suitably freely licensed). Sometimes being too precisely correct engenders wp:UNDUE. Then again, while we could easily find many verifiable sources that say "lightning never strikes twice", there is still Roy Sullivan. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm okay justifying the wording with IAR in this case. I still might try to improve the sourcing if I have time later on, but that works for me until then. :) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolving discussions

Hiya, I concluded discussions in general but particularly re the arsenic poisoning needed some help so have posted it here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Homeopathy_-_to_mention_a_summary_or_the_conclusion. I hope you see this in the positive light in which it was it was done. I'm instructed to notify you hence me posting here - it being the most efficient as far as iI understand. Cjwilky (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Kbothwell's welcome

The new user you welcomed the other day, user talk:Kbothwell, had the misfortune to run into Hrafn on the UPI article page. I copied this from Hrafn's talk page:

Get it first, but first get it right.

[ WP:Complete bollocks from some twit who cannot wrap their mind around the fact that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", and that it is not "common sense" to expect somebody to take account of a source that is neither cited nor to hand, has been removed. This thread is closed, and the correspondent is invited to takes themselves elsewhere. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ]

There is no need for name calling, Mr. Hrafn. I understand the difference between slavish obedience to policies and the use of common sense. Apparently you failed to read the sections of the wiki policies on accuracy in quotations and the use of common sense, even at the expense of rules. I feel sorry for you that you are unable to engage in rational discussion and instead opt to declare victory and end the discussion by saying "I declare I'm right and that ends the discussion." Interesting also that you chose to edit out all the valid points I made in the discussion, apparently in a vain attempt to make you look better. And I suggest you recheck your source -- I contacted the Chicago Tribune, pointed out the error in their article and requested that they correct it.--Kbothwell (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Twit is singular and thus takes a singular pronoun. You should have said his mind rather than their mind. As an editor, you should know the difference. --Kbothwell (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you want to do anything about it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I guess, but no, I'm not interested in getting involved unless it seems likely I could do some good. I try to stay out of contentious situations, especially involving certain editors, unless it's really necessary. This doesn't seem to concern my editing particularly. If you're suggesting someone should step in and do something, then feel free to elaborate. My mind is open to being changed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read your helpful response to Kbothwell on his talk page. Thank you for that! I don't think anything more needs to be done. Thanks again. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits on the filioque.

Uh I know this might seem a bit crazy coming from me, but your recent edits on the filioque article [30] are actually good. Could you maybe come back to the article and do some more cleaning up. The article is actually allot better now.. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

They're "actually good"? I'm surprised that you find positive contributions from me out of the ordinary. I do plan to return to the article when I have time... but I have a lot of other things on my plate as well, so I can't guarantee when that will be. A lot of articles need improvement, unfortunately.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Humanism

Yo, what's the story with the humanism lead? I can't seem to find which ref says that humanism espouses reason ethics and justice (or which refs state them separately, as the case may be.) 79.97.174.231 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. This discussion really belongs on the article talk page, but I suppose I'll address it here. We have a couple sources which define Secular Humanism, including The Council for Secular Humanism, A Secular Humanist Declaration (sourced and reprinted here), Humanism and Its Aspirations (sourced and reprinted here), and the IHEU. There are many more (see Humanist Manifesto for other dated examples). Our job is to summarize each of the various definitions into a compact yet comprehensive definition, and through discussion and compromise (particularly with respect to the "justice" bit) we've settled on that wording. TBH, I think the wording could be improved substantially, and I'd fully support a rewrite. However, removing it entirely such that the sentence reads only "Secular humanism rejects the supernatural" doesn't do justice to what SH really is, focusing instead on only one tenant of many. While the current wording could be improved, it does seem to summarize the topic broadly in a way I find acceptable. If you have suggestions for improvement, they'd be welcome on the Talk:Secular Humanism page. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Format question

Hi. I'd like to get a discussion going over at Militant atheism about the lede. I have (hopfully) sorted out the current sources and organized them here. I'm not sure what the most effective (i.e. avoiding the wall o' text, et al.) format would be for adding the data to the talk page. I'm still playing with it but would you mind having a look and giving some feedback? Btw..."Your insane man, it'll never work!" is acceptable feedback :) Thanks - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Nice work! I assume the second section ("Compare Lede Work") is identical to our current lead, just with the references for each statement quoted inline, is that correct? That's hugely helpful. What you can do is just post a new section to the talk page and link to that page. If you'd prefer it were out of your userspace, you can also move it to something like Talk:Militant Atheism/Proposed Lead instead. It's fairly common for drafts to be done in that way. If you have any specific proposals for changing the lead, feel free to chime in too! Let me know if you wanted more specific input :) Thanks Artifex!   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, it should all follow the current lede (excepting any mistakes I have made). Moving it out of my user space is probably a good idea. It should be ready in the next few hours. I don't have anything specific in mind for the lede right now (kind of a forest trees problem for me) but the information format should help people focus (I would hope). Knowledge is god. Any input on format, etc. is more than welcome. Thanks again. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually some input on what (if anything) should go at the top of the page would be helpful. Any templates that might be useful, etc. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the {{{Workspace}}} template is being considered for deletion (though unlikely), you might want to swap it for Template:Talkspace draft, Template:Project Sandbox or Template:Draft. Other than that, I can't really think of anything. I'd just post a link to it on the article talk page and go from there :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Found it. Now the fun begins :) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Militant atheism. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)

Hi Lionelt. While I appreciate a good faith warning, before issuing one, I would generally advise actually reviewing the situation. The edits in question didn't reintroduce any disputed content, and discussion on the talk page was ongoing. Each of my edits left out any and all content Anupam contested, which I made very clear. I'll also note that you didn't warn Anupam, who actually did break 3rr by reverting the same content 4 times without explanation. Not sure what your reason was for warning me and not him, but I don't see it as much of a productive conversation either way. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The warning was for the back and forth reverting of the NPOV tag. I'll have a look see at Anupam's reverts. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the NPOV tag was removed. According to him on the talk page, he didn't contend with all of my edits, but because I had made so many changes, he found it difficult to separate the things he didn't agree with from the stuff he did. As such, when he wholesale reverted everything, I left out the stuff he opposed and reintroduced the rest of my content he didn't. The NPOV tag was part of those reverts (I'm not sure why he removed it. He never said. I sort of guessed it was an accident in an unrelated reversion, particularly since there's an ongoing RfC regarding that issue on the talk page). To my reading, this is not a violation of the spirit of WP:EW (and in either case, certainly not of 3rr). OTOH, his reversion of the same content for no stated reason 4 times in one day is. He's discussing things on talk rather than reverting now, so I'd rather just let the issue drop. I was just pointing out that the warning tag on my page seems a bit misplaced, to say the least.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Objections to Evolution /

Content dispute I'm not a part of
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have a message at my page incl.: Please explain why in your opinion only an opinion X should be displayed w/o even allowing for neutrality flag if you are admitting that the topic is disputed and the discussion trying to reach consensus is going on, what is exactly the message of that flag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." It does not make sense to formulate warning if you are at the same time failing to address the presented arguments.--Stephfo (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I have no take on the content dispute. However, you are repeatedly reverting multiple editors on the Objections to Evolution article. That behavior is called edit warring, and is considered disruptive. As such, I warned you for edit warring on your talk page. Instead of reverting (which won't actually accomplish anything), please engage them on the talk page and attempt to form consensus. If consensus has already formed, then it's up to you to abide by that consensus, or pursue other methods of dispute resolution. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but you failed to address my Q on neutrality (is it referred to as NPOV?) - I noticed you insisted on keeping it on other occasion - in article on militant atheism ("And again (see below)... considering there's an ongoing RfC regarding neutrality, this really needs to be added back in." Why do you think it doe not need to be back in in the dispute over "objections to evolution"? Please, explain. Thanx a LOT. --Stephfo (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC) On militant atheism, there is an ongoing neutrality discussion on the talk page, and therefore a NPOV tag is warranted to bring other users into the discussion. On Objections to Evolution, the discussion has settled and consensus has formed that there is not a neutrality issue. Therefore, there is not an ongoing discussion to which a tag would draw in editors, and therefore, the tag is misplaced. That's not particularly relevant to this discussion, however. Regardless of whether the content or tag are warranted, continually reverting other editors is still edit warring. Please see that article. Continuing to edit war can get you blocked, even if you are right. The correct course of action is outlined in WP:DR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC) May you please point to specific text that you regard as proving your assertion "the discussion has settled and consensus has formed that there is not a neutrality issue". I personally feel to be part of that discussion and I have never agreed on any claim like that, quite opposite, I hold view that the given text on thermodynamics for extremely biased by reasoning that the original argument of Andrew McIntosh (professor) is embellished out of all recognition and replaced by a strawman instead.--Stephfo (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) That discussion is best held on the article talk page. All I asked is that you didn't edit war. Edit warring will get you blocked. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I again quite strongly disagree, I always had tried to find out what the reasons were for un-editing my add-on and only when no whatsoever was presented I dared to revert the page back, since to remove content w/o any reason supported by evidence sounds quite nonsensical and I'm astonished that you reproach me as subject of such vandalism instead of asking the people who keep performing reverts for reasons supported by evidence. War edit states: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I do declare that I had tried to resolve the disagreement and only when no counter-arguments were presented I reverted the page back as I regarded the removal of content thus unjustified. Moreover, you show just blind eye when I present argument like following, failing to address the point entirely: If the claim is that consensus should be reached on discussion pages and at the same time only one-sided text is allowed to be left displayed at main article, I considered such situation as HIGHLY UNETHICAL. In my strong opinion both side's texts should be then removed or both left and a label warning on ongoing discussion flagged. Please explain why in your opinion only an opinion X should be displayed w/o even allowing for neutrality flag if you are admitting that the topic is disputed and the discussion trying to reach consensus is going on, what is exactly the message of that flag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I better repeat again - do you understand the question: "Please explain why in your opinion only an opinion X should be displayed w/o even allowing for neutrality flag if you are admitting that the topic is disputed and the discussion trying to reach consensus is going on"? Please, explain. Thanx in advance--Stephfo (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I don't know how to explain it better. Edit warring is against policy and will get you blocked. If you are in a dispute, you need to follow WP:DR. The details of the dispute are irrelevant.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I did not ask about edit warring but on neutrality flag being banned, what is you answer on that - I better repeat again - do you understand the question: "Please explain why in your opinion only an opinion X should be displayed w/o even allowing for neutrality flag if you are admitting that the topic is disputed and the discussion trying to reach consensus is going on"? Am I allowed to follow this WP rule: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."? Or do you claim that I have no such right? Pls. explain.--Stephfo (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Please keep this on the article talk. I'm not involved in your content dispute, so I can't comment on the details. It's up to you to hash this out on the talk page. Just don't edit war again, and please don't post back here to argue. I am not involved, nor do I care to be. I'm sorry, but I have a lot on my plate ATM. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC) But then it is strange that you removed the neutrality flag what I consider for breach of WP rules and here you claim you have nothing to do with article - what were then the reasons for your removal of neutrality flag - isn't it nonsense to remove it if you are "not involved ... content dispute"  ? Is it normal that editors remove neutrality flags if they have no notion about content of dispute?--Stephfo (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Please stop posting here. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC) It is strange that you are not part of your own actions - where should I get then answer why you removed the neutrality flag, are you trying to propose that you only did it because someone else had forced you and that's why I have to ask someone else to find reasons for such removal? Thanx in advance for explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)