User talk:Jessicanr

Welcome!

Hello, Jessicanr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Fabricationary 07:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolution from the abolition of feudalism to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy[edit]

[copied]
You stated "The omission of women was implicit, but the recent wording here suggested it was explicit." If one does not know about the Declaration and reads that it was "a doctrine of popular sovereignty and equal opportunity" they would assume it included women and slaves. as this was not the case it should be clarified. Jessicanr 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[end copied]

Yes. I think what I've written still keeps that clear, but also clarifies that this was simply a failure to remedy the status of women, not an active statement against women's rights. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Gender Studies[edit]

Hi Jessicanr, I'm asking some Project Gender Studies members for their opinions on a few changes to the project templates. The discussion is here. If you're interested please have a look. I'd also like to have the project page unprotected so it could be editted to give due balance to the Gender Theory activities of the project as well as the removal of systemic bias activities - what would be your opinions on this (discussed here)?--Cailil 01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Genome Chromosome Number[edit]

Hi - thanks for following up. The situation is expounded upon a bit more later in the article:

There are 24 distinct human chromosomes: 22 autosomal chromosomes, plus the sex-determining X and Y chromosomes. Chromosomes 1–22 are numbered roughly in order of decreasing size. Somatic cells usually have 23 chromosome pairs: one copy of chromosomes 1–22 from each parent, plus an X chromosome from the mother, and either an X or Y chromosome from the father, for a total of 46.

So there are indeed 24 distinct chromosomes in the "human genome" taken as a species-level entity. The immediately-following statements that the genome contains 20,000-25,000 genes and is just over 3 billion DNA base pairs, which are the accepted figures, refer to the total content of these 24 chromosomes. (If you wanted to study the genome of an individual, in that case you would want to look at their full set of 46 chromosomes, which would contain two very slightly different copies of the 20,000-25,000 genes.)

As my edit hinted, I'm also not really happy with how it is being presented now, as many readers are confused by it. There are various other technical terms that could be thrown around (monoploid number, homologous sets, etc.) to make the semantics exact, but I don't think this would necessarily be helpful in the introduction. I do feel that what is there now is the least bad way I've seen so far :-/ --Mike Lin (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide[edit]

I reverted your change to Genocide because it was an alteration to the text of a quote and as the hidden comment says: "This is a quote. The original is 'ethnical'. See www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarchy[edit]

Hi. On 14 June 2007, you added this information to Matriarchy. There is currently a discussion about the inclusion of elephants on this list over at Talk:Matriarch#animals.2C_elephants. I'm afraid that I've been unable to find good sources for this list, so I'm going to remove it to the talk page at this time. Feel free to add it back in when you can add citations. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animals and sign language[edit]

I mean no personal offense, but it is clear that you know little or nothing about the linguistics of sign language. Sign language, like any other language, consists of signs, grammatical rules, and syntax. It's not just a conglomeration of gestures that we call signs. Animals do NOT use language, regardless of what a source might say. To say that animals use sign language is equivalent to saying that if I learn 10 words in a foreign language that I can speak that language. Adding a source to something that is wrong does not mean that it should stay in the article. If I add a source to Moon stating that it is made of cheese, that doesn't mean it is correct and should remain in the article. Please familiarize yourself with the linguistics of sign language (start by reading every article related to American Sign Language) before adding outrageous information about animals using sign language. I have used American Sign Language for 30 years and I still don't consider myself fluent in it. I also have read the research on attempts to teach signs to animals (not grammar, not syntax, just SIGNS). To state that an animal that responds to a few signs is using language is absurd. If you can find two or three peer-reviewed articles in a journal on lingusitics claiming definitively that animals use language, I will stand corrected. Again, no personal offense, but reliable sources are necessary for editing, but alone they are not necessarily sufficient. I would never edit an article on nuclear physics just because I read an article on the internet about the topic; some articles require more than a source or two to edit properly; they require competence in the subject matter. Cresix (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the first language babies can learn? sign language. They are not able to use proper grammar rules and syntax, but they are able to communicate using sign language. the same goes for gorillas and chimps. additionally humans use sign language to communicate with dogs and horses. i don't see what the problem is.-jessica

I'm not talking about babies. Of course babies can learn sign language; children of deaf adults do it every day. I'm talking about animals such as chimps and gorillas, who do not use language. Communication is not the same thing as language. Please read about language. Language is more than words or signs. For the third time: LANGUAGE HAS RULES. Gorillas, chimps, dogs, and horses DO NOT USE THE RULES OF LANGUAGE. At most they use or respond to words or signs. If I point to something that I want, I AM NOT USING LANGUAGE. I am using gestures. Stop edit warring on this matter because every linguist in the world disagrees with you. If you continue, I will take this to WP:ANI. Take it to the talk page and get consensus before adding the information again. If you need an official warning, here it is:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sign language. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    you say chimps and gorillas do not use language. at what age do human babies use language? video showing michael the gorilla using sign language: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXKsPqQ0Ycc

"Had you in the beginning provided a link to the transcript of the AOL discussion with Koko, papers showing flaws in the research and their methods, I think I would have come to agree with you sooner.": I understand your concern, but you also bear some responsibility. When something is challenged, you don't continue to revert; you discuss on the talk page. You did not do that until I forced the issue by starting the talk page discussion myself. Secondly, you might benefit from reading WP:BURDEN; it is not my responsibility to teach you the details about a topic that you don't understand. I don't edit some articles because I know little about the topic; I don't assume I understand enough simply because I read something or saw a video on the internet. I'm sorry that you had to learn to deal with that reality of editing, but we all learn from experience.
"This distinction is one that I believe the majority of the population does not make because the majority of the population is not familiar with linguistics.": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Accuracy is more important than placing misinformation in an article simply because "the majority of the population" doesn't understand something.
""Animals do NOT use language, regardless of what a source might say" and "Please familiarize yourself with the linguistics of sign language (start by reading every article related to American Sign Language) before adding outrageous information about animals using sign language" are not helpful in furthering the education of people on this subject. I urge you both to not become discouraged if a person does not agree with you immediately, it may be that you are introducing them to a new perspective and therefore it takes time for a person to change their mind": That comment from me was not made "immediately"; only after you continued to revert instead of discussing on the talk page.
"I feel it would have been more productive for those more knowledgeable on the subject to incorporate their knowledge/expertise to the information I was trying to include along with deleting, rather than only deleting.": That is excactly what happened on the talk page after I began the discussion. It wasn't simply a matter of deleting. I began discussion. There is nothing wrong with deleting inaccurate information, and I did not "only delete". I started the discussion after you reverted more than once.
"unfortunately, in our society, finding peer reviewed journals that are free and easily accessible (i.e. online) are hard to come by. I think if you provide sources for your position with research from the journals you have at the beginning of the discussion, rather than only when someone asks for it, it will help those who want to learn about the topic, such as myself.": I agree online access is not always possible, but that does not justify reverting to inaccurate information. And once again, read WP:BURDEN: the burden of sourcing is on the editor who wishes to add or restore information. I eventually provided it, but don't think I didn't have to go to some trouble to get it simply because I did so. Please don't chastise me because you did not, could not, or would not find information that was your responsibility to find.
"I hope there is a place for me to help contribute to this topic": There is almost always a place for anyone to edit on Wikipedia. But I ask you to edit on topics with which you have some knowledge beyond the superifical level. As I have said, I never edit some article because I know nothing about the topic. That does not mean you cannot be involved in deaf-related topics. But work collaborately with editors who have the expertise, rather than assuming something is accurate simply because you read it on the internet.
I continue to say I mean no personal offense to you. I want an accurate encyclopedia, and I do not hesitate to remove or change something that I know to be inaccurate. If you had acknoweldged your limited knowledge on my talk page and asked for help rather than continuing to revert, or if you had raised the issue on the article's talk page instead of continuing to revert, I would have gladly discussed with you. Thank you for your message. Cresix (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should come hang out with us on the internetz![edit]

Hi! I wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap if that subject interests you. We hope this channel can serve as a safe haven to hang out, talk about Wiki, brainstorming, increasing women's participation in Wikimedia, article alerts and foster friendships. I hope you join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]