User talk:Jess/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

House Episode List

I removed the caterogies so you would not get warning i was makigna page in my userpage before and becaus ei left the caterogies ti meant peopel could find it and i got a bit of a warning for it--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

delink overlink ie if you have two wikilinks to say dummy and dummy delink the seocond one so it dummy and dummy might be good idea to remove the (1-01) however this would need ot be discussed in talk first ie house talk

Hay can you comment on the improvement section in talk i have listed things i think need done to clean the article up more and before it sent for a peer review so we know wether it can be nomaited for featured list candaite again.--Andy Chat c 21:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of House (Season 6) episodes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of House (Season 6) episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Cyrstal balling; no substantive content.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

igloo

Hi there. In order to use igloo, you require the rollback user right. You can request this right here, but please read the instructions first. Thanks, Ale_Jrb^talk 09:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! :) Jess talk 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added you to the igloo whitelist. If you now try to use the program, it should allow you to connect. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll give it a shot later today! :) Jess ^talk _cs 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

hello

hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.55.2 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Is there something I can help you with? :) Jess ^talk _cs 16:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

i am sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.103.84 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you really? Because you vandalized another page just 2 minutes before posting this. If you're legitimately trying to contribute but having a hard time, please stop editing pages now and ask questions to either me or another more senior editor. We're all very friendly here, and more than happy to help out. I would also recommend you create a user account, so that your future contributions can be associated to you. This also makes it easier to talk to you, whereas now it's almost impossible since your ip address could change before I even post this message.

Again, please ask if you have questions. I've only given you a friendly reminder on your talk page for your last edit. I'd really love to see you contribute quality information to wikipedia in the future and build a positive reputation here! I'll see you around. Good luck! Jess ^talk _cs 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert

I thought what i had edited was useful as just because the police received a report didn't mean that it was a hoax, as Derren is a smart person, he was able to know exactly how to play it safely and was sure no-one would get hurt hence it not being a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.87.84 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't a problem with removing the part about it being a hoax. The problem was removing the reference. It seems you probably did that on accident, which is why it was reverted as good faith by Geoff B. You are probably free to remove the hoax part, just be careful about only removing that much. Also, you might consider getting a username. Changes are more often considered to be good faith when you're not anonymous. :)

Thanks for your contribution! Welcome to WP! Ask if you have any questions, and good luck! Jess ^talk _cs 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your good work on the Atheism lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys did all the work. I only chimed in at the end. Thanks for all the effort you guys put in to reforming the lead. I honestly think it's a huge improvement! :) Jess ^talk _cs 23:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bree Olson

I have no problem with the category now that it's sourced. You might want to have a look at WP:SURNAME though. Thanks for the source! Dismas|^(talk) 05:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for the name correction! See you around. :) 05:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk section moved per your suggesion

Jess: following your suggestion I moved the "integrate other articles" discussion to the new location: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism#Improve_relationships_between_anti.2Fnon-religion.2Fatheism_articles.3F. I removed the discussion from the original location at: Talk:Atheism#Improve_relationships_between_anti.2Fnon-religion.2Fatheism_articles.3F. That movement included moving your comment from one place to another which, of course, requires your permission. Your comment is unchanged, but it is in the new location now. If you want me to move it back, let me know. --18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine, of course! Thanks for asking though! :) Jess ^talk _cs 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring?

Please ignore the content I just recently put on your main page. I've deleted that and subsequently pasted the material here now that I found the appropriate section.

Hi Mann jess,

You recently put the "Edit Warring" label on my talk page. I have absolutely no reason why you consider my editing behavior to be edit warring. It's not true. I make changes backed up with plenty of supporting arguments and counter arguments. All of this is done BEFORE I make the changes. I do not simply revert things back to its original content for no reason. All of my changes are consistent with what other users are repeatedly doing (and for that matter, are doing far more than what I'm doing). Moreover, if what I'm doing is truly edit warring, then you are engaged in it. Please do not threaten me with labels that are unjustified and no worse than what you are doing. Doing so is an abuse of wikipedia.--Jeremy 414 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'll say this again, now for the 4th time. Please read WP:EW and WP:3RR. Reverting good faith edits multiple times in succession is known as edit warring, by definition, and is against wikipedia policy. Furthermore, you have yet to address the sources provided on the talk page, or respond to further discussion there. Jess ^talk _cs 01:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mann Jess,

I read WP:EW and WP:3RR. I'm not reverting changes for no reason. You keep ignoring that. Sure, your changes are in good faith, but that doesn't make the changes actual good ones. That's my point. I'm changing something because I think it's eminently justified. And I have addressed your arguments. Please see the discussion page. I've addressed everything adequately. If not please tell me what I'm missing. All you said was that Craig refers to himself as an evangelical, and therefore it's OK to add it. Was there anything else I missed? Thanks--Jeremy 414 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you consider them to be "good edits". It is against wikipedia policy to edit war. Multiple successive reverts of good faith edits is edit warring. That is against WP policy, as outlined clearly in WP:EW and WP:3RR Jess ^talk _cs 01:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then by the criteria you list above, you're also "edit warring", since you reverted by "good edits" twice, as I did yours (you, however, reverted my "good edit" first, and without any reply in the discussion page).--Jeremy 414 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, you were the first revert on the 30th, here and here, and again on the 31st, here. You subsequently reverted again today here, which began the edit war. That's in addition to possible additional reversions as an ip user. As for the discussion page, both I and theowarner responded to your revert on the discussion page, providing ample sources and links to WP policy pages. You only responded to my contribution there after you were warned for edit warring, and that response failed to address any of the sources or policy pages listed. Jess ^talk _cs 01:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I never saw the "edit warring" warning until after I had made the responses. I'm very knew to wikipedia editing and their policies and I'm learning most of this on the go. I didn't know reversions weren't allowed if ample reasons were given to support keeping it a certain way (again, I need to emphasize that I never changed everything back to what it was before. I kept most of the changes in while reverting back others). It's quite amusing that I just found out that you reported me on the administration page for edit warring. You didn't even bother trying to discuss it with me or come to some agreement. You're only interested in banning me so as to silence me. And why only me? Why not theowarner2? After all, he's done PLENTY of reversions himself on this page. All of this is crazy, since I consider myself a very reasonable, open ended person. I had perfectly well intentioned reasons for my changes and had no intention of simply engaging in unconstructive edits for no reason. All of that, however, probably won't matter soon because some tech savy internet person who knows how the system works is probably going to get his way by banning me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy 414 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, I have no doubt that your edits were in good faith. However, your actions have been against policy, and have disrupted other users' good faith edits to improve the article. It is also policy to report edit warring to the administrator noticeboard, which I followed. In no way does this constitute you being banned, it is simply a request for administrative intervention to uphold WP rules. I know that you're new to WP, which is why I directed you to the appropriate policy articles in my edit summaries and on the article talk page, and have subsequently engaged in discussion here. I sincerely would like you to continue contributing positively to WP, which includes working with other editors to develop an article based on reliable sources and the manual of style. Jess ^talk _cs 02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! But from what I understand about reading the WP:EW article, it also advised users to try and work things out before it comes to the action of reporting users. With me, however, it seems like you just quickly went to that option when you saw you had a technical right within the policy rules to do so. If you simply talked to me first about what could likely happen, I would have been very reasonable in stopping the edits. If I'm not getting banned, then what? For all I know, administration intervention will result in me being banned from editing that page, or from what I've read so far, making edits to that page for a VERY LONG TIME. I have a sincere question about this. If a user genuinely thinks that good faith edits are resulting in bad changes, and consequently thinks the old version is perfectly acceptable, then how does one go about keeping it that way. Forgive me, but from everything that you've said here, it seems like one can't ever really keep things in an article the same if they are changed by another user. Is there not some way of keeping certain fundamental aspects of an article, like phrases, certain titles or descriptions, the same? Please note that my question is not asking you if you think my reversions are unjustified (obviously you do). My question is asking you what one does when it really is legitimate to keep a part of the article a certain way. What does wikipedia policy say on that matter? Can you direct me to a link about it? It would be much appreciated. Thanks--Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The result of the noticeboard request was to not intervene, based on your last post, which I agree with. Please ask me or another senior editor if you need help regarding WP policy. While we may be opposed on the issue of WLC's lead, that doesn't make me your enemy or any such nonsense. I'm just trying to contribute to WP, much like you. Hopefully we can find some common ground on the talk page. Good luck! Jess ^talk _cs 02:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me this. That's a big relief. I appreciate your comment about trying to find common ground and that I'm not your enemy. We obviously both want to make appropriate, well intentioned edits to the page. Instead of reverting the lead and other things that may be objected to by yourself and theowarner2, I'll try and see if I can make a case for the proposed original material on the discussion page BEFORE changing it on my own. Thanks again!!--Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding Jeremy. To answer your question above, the best way to keep an article's wording is to establish consensus. Keep in mind, WP is not a democracy, so simply having more votes on your side won't help. However, having regular editors of the page agree with a change (or revert) who are able to back their position up with links can. In discussing these sorts of changes on talk pages, it helps your case a lot if you can cite either wikipedia policy (like WP:Lead for example) or precedent set in some other article (the higher rated the article is, the better). A few of your comments on the discussion page have only stated that you disagree with another editor, but unfortunately that doesn't further the discussion at all, and overall really can't be considered. Sometimes you'll just butt heads with other editors and no consensus can really be drawn. In those cases, it's best to request dispute resolution, but that should really be a final straw, after discussing it on your own hasn't made any ground.

It might help to understand how these disputes usually work by looking through the talk pages of other featured articles. Most of them (especially the controversial ones) have disputes regarding small changes to wording from time to time, some of which can go on for ages. You'll see that the senior editors who make the most ground in those discussions are the ones who keep a level head, remain respectful (and assume good faith even if they disagree strongly), and cite policy, reliable sources and precedent to back up their position.

I hope that helps answer your question. If there's anything else I can clear up, feel free to ask! Jess ^talk _cs 03:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hello Jess, I noticed a message of yours on my discussion page. I decided to take the liberty to ask you how I could change my username. I noticed that it can be found on the web and since it is my real name I would like to change is. Do you know how to go about this? Thanks in advance. --Arjenvanslingerlandt (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arjen. You absolutely can change it. You need to get in touch with a bureaucrat. You can find out more about the process at Wikipedia:U#Changing_your_username. Good luck! Jess ^talk _cs 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, bureaucrats and their forms.... --Arjenvanslingerlandt (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Hello Jess, I have yet another question. I want to leave a signature after my edits and I think I am doing that by the button above the edit box. However, I see an automated response that leaves my real name after my sig., claiming it made the automated response because I did not leave my sig.

example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deontological_ethics

How do I fix this?

--Faust (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

edit: but here it works???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjenvanslingerlandt (talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Arjen. :) There's no button to press. You just need to put four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. (Your signature was added on this page automatically by an automated bot. That's why you were getting those messages on your talk page!) For example, if I wanted to leave this reply "Hey Arjen. How are you?", I would type "Hey Arjen. How are you? ~~~~". Does that make sense? Some of the intricacies of wikipedia take a bit of time to get used to, but once you get them down they're all pretty easy! ;) Jess ^talk _cs 06:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jess, I think there is a button to press. Above the edit box, in between the buttons for italic letters (and such) and a button for advanced options there is a button which shows a little picture of a pen. That is a button which leaves -- (and for tildes). I hope you can find it. However, when I did so on the deontological ethics page it first did not leave a hyperlink, only my nickname. On this talk page however, it did. The second time at the deontological ethics (talk) page it did so as well. The second remark here I forgot to leave a sig, which prompted the message on my talk page. So, the problem seems to have been fixed, but I don't know why. I'll try again here: --Faust (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see! I think most editors just add the four tildes themselves because it's easier than clicking the button. You might have accidentally backspaced one of the tildes before. Different amounts of tildes do different things. For example:

1. ~
2. ~~
3. Jess ^talk _cs
4. Jess ^talk _cs 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
5. 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm glad it's resolved now. Let me know if you have any other questions! Good luck! :) Jess ^talk _cs 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting: On your talk page, the talk page part of your signature won't hyperlink, since you're already on that page. See how "talk" is black on mine? On all other pages it will. :) Jess ^talk _cs 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! If I were a shrewd man I would try to remember this...

--Faust (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Hi Jess, seeing as you offered to help out on more problems I think I would like to discuss the following: I am trying to improve on the maxim (philosophy) page. It is not hard to improve on it by the way, but I am having troubles with my references. I copied the idea from the Immanuel Kant page. However, when I left my idea to edit for the edit on the talk page I did not see the list of references appear. It might be that the script reading the reference code is not running on talk pages, but I don't know. Could you take a look? Thanks in advance. --Faust (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To get references to appear, you have to add the {{reflist}} template. Just type that anywhere on the page, and it will be replaced by anything you put inside <ref></ref> tags. Does that make sense? With all that said, it's generally better not to put things in ref tags on talk pages. Those are mainly intended for the main article. Unless there's a reason you really need to, you should probably just list the references you want to use on the talk page, so that other editors can discuss them :) Jess ^talk _cs 16:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jess, makes sense, understood and will add when I will update the main article (if no serieus complaints are made). Thanks again! --Faust (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hello helpdesk, I was thinking about using an image on my own page (of Faust), so I checked out the Help:Visual file markup. It explains how to displays images and such, which are drawn from a database of some sort. However, there does not seem to be a link to an explanation of how to upload images to said database. Do you know how and should we not place a link to such an explanation in the help article? Thanks again. --Faust (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey again :) To link to a file on wikipedia, you first have to upload it either here or to wikimedia commons. If the image is something specific to english wikipedia, it should go here. If it's a generic image, or something which will be used across other language sites, you should try putting it on commons. Uploading images can be a little daunting though, because you have to get all the copyright information ahead of time. We only allow free images to be used, so that part is important.

In the left hand side, you should see a section called "Toolbox". In that section, there's a link called "Upload file". That should guide you through the rest of the process. Once it's uploaded, you can link to it from any page on the site. Hope that helps! :) Jess ^talk _cs 16:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, just for simplicity, that Upload file link is here. Jess ^talk _cs 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jess, how do I know if an image is free or not? --Faust (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Upload File covers a bit of it, and will more or less walk you through the process. If you're getting the image from off-line, then oftentimes the copyright information will be listed somewhere on the page. Otherwise, if you know who made the image, you can contact them to ask. If it's not an image which is online, and you don't know the author, then it's probably not free unless it's very old. This article might be helpful in describing our image use policy in a bit more detail. Hope that helps! :) If you look at those articles and still can't figure out if your image is free, let me know, and maybe I can look it over. Jess ^talk _cs 16:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way... are you watching my talk page? If so, I'll stop leaving those silly talkback templates you'll just have to clean up later :) If not, no big deal. I just don't want to be polluting your talk page if I don't have to! Jess ^talk _cs 17:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Jess, I will study the page and process you pointed out. I am watching your talk page btw, thanks for your concern. --Faust (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Would you look over the maxim page? Since I changed it I would like to know if everything is as it should be. Thanks for all you help Jess! --Faust (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks!

Thanks for your help on William Lane Craig. I'd love to chat sometime. Good to contact someone who's not an immediate adversary! Theowarner2 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha! You sometimes get that sort of militant response on badly formatted religious articles. Don't take it to represent the WP community as a whole. I'm happy to chat any time :) Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anywhere I can help out! Jess ^talk _cs 05:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Before calling upon the Wikipedia rules and judging other people's behaviour, please, correct your own behaviour. Your 'replies' are cynical, false, ignorant, aimed to ridicule references' authors and Wikipedia users.

Also, fix you user page. Pretending to be a software professional (programmer, ingenieer, which you are obviously not) you should avoid giving a huge list of languages you are proficient with. Such a snotnose boasting just disqualifies you in the eyes of those who are true professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.103 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough and constructive criticism. I will spend the night reflecting on my behavior, and change my attitude and outlook on life at once. Jess ^talk _cs 02:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Always nice to get soms ANONYMOUS advice, don't you think Jess? --Faust (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Do you want me to report this cowardly remark? It certainly does not improve on a productive editing atmosphere. --Faust (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. It's not totally anonymous. He's this guy... he's just hiding behind an ip. Anyway, it's no problem at all! He's just a common troll, so there's no need to give him any undue attention. Thanks for the offer though! :) Jess ^talk _cs 14:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --Faust (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) By the way: how can I find out what IP is used by a user or what user uses which IP? --Faust (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

Yes, those numbers to be known because Vedas give more precise numbers than modern so-called science which says age of Earth is around this or that, but not sure. So Vedas give precise knowledge from perfect source (above man mistakes - it is from Supreme Person, Supersoul, Godhead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.243.223 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about my reversion of your recent string of adding hindu links to a bunch of scientific articles. That behavior is known as vandalism, and it's unacceptable on wikipedia. Please try to contribute constructively. Scientific articles concern the scientific consensus, not what the Vedas happen to say. Jess ^talk _cs 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, see also earlier today: 95.133.1.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DVdm (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic... Looking over his history, he appears to be acting in good faith... but man, is that one big mess to clean up in a short time. Jess ^talk _cs 18:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG.... wtf?

Hostility Towards Krishna Consciousness Hi, I was just wondering if someone could clear something up for me. It seems to me as if Wikipedia does not want Krishna Conscious beliefs anywhere in Wikipedia articles. For some reason Wikipedia believes that Krishna Consciousness does not matter and that it is Vandalism to even include anything about them. For example in articles such as Rama, Wikipedia will not even let me say that according to ISKCON or Krishna Consciousness Rama appeared 20 million years ago or that he is believed by ISKCON to incarnate every 8.64 billion years (a day of Brahma). Since Wikipedia considers ISKCON to be Hindu I think this should at least be noted since I have supplied many accurate sources from ISCKON itself that represents ISKCON’s beliefs. These are not my own beliefs or original research but beliefs by what you consider a sect of Hinduism so I thought it would be appropriate to atleast acknowledge Krishna Conscious beliefs since you say it is apart of Hindusim. When I do include this you say ISKCON is not Hindu and it does not count in a Hindu article. So if I go on the ISKCON page and change the word Hindu to Vedic or Krishna Conscious, you then say that ISKCON is Hindu and stating it as another religion is wrong. So I think this a contradiction. You insist ISKCON is Hindu and that the word Hindu must be used but you fail to let anyone even acknowledge the beliefs of ISKCON in Hindu articles like Rama or this one “Hindu Cosmology”. It seems like this is a double standard. You insist that ISKCON is Hindu but when I include ISKCON’s beliefs in Hindu articles like this one or Rama you insist that it is not Hindu and cannot get any mention whatsoever. This is unfair because in many articles of Hinduism even non-hindu beliefs are given yet when I try to say if we can have just one sentence acknowledging ISKCON’s beliefs you do not allow it. It seems as if Wikipedia will deny that ISKCON is separate from Hinduism and at the same time insist it is not Hindu in order to completely censor its beliefs relating to Hindu topics such as Rama or Hindu Cosmology. For example you say I cannot even write any ISKCON-related beliefs about Hindu Cosmology, yet you insist that ISKCON is Hindu. This is hypocrisy because you will not acknowledge ISKCON to be its own religion so you call it Hindu, but even so then you will say it is not Hindu and that any view ISKCON has on anything Hindu cannot even be mentioned in one sentence anywhere. I even tried to make my own articles to give the Krishna Conscious belief of Krishna, Rama, and other but Wikipedia continually deletes these articles again and again even though I have many reliable sources. The articles I create are usually entitled as Rama in Krishna Consciousness, or Krishna in Krishna Consciousness so that I am not being biased and that it is not my point of view because I am saying in the title that this is the Krishna Conscious view. So people know that is why it is only talking about one view. And I cite many reliable sources from ISKCON to prove it. I made these articles because Wikipedia would not let me even include one sentence about ISKCON’s belief about Rama in his article, even though they insist ISKCON is Hindu and has a fit if anyone says otherwise. Sadly Wikipedia seems to want to censor all ISKCON related beliefs, all beliefs about how Krishna Consciousness views other things. For example there is an article entitled Jesus in Islam. This gives the Islamic View of Jesus. But when I created an Article entitled Jesus in Krishna Consciousness many times every time Wikipedia deleted it and blocked me from editing. I had cited many reliable sources of How ISKCON (Krishna Consciousness) views Jesus but they keep saying I am vandalilzing. I think it is religious intolerance that other beliefs are allowed to be expressed like Jesus in Islam but Jesus in Krishna Consciousness cannot be allowed to exist. Why is this? Why must Krishna Conscious views by censored and grouped in Hinduism like it doesn’t exist and then their views are not even mentioned so that people do not even know these views exist and assume that everything a Hindu believes in is the same as a Krishna Conscious person. It is like saying Jesus in Islam should not exist, so that everybody will think that the whole world thinks Jesus is the Son of God. Why is Wikipedia letting other religions express their beliefs in articles but censoring any Krishna Conscious belief that does not agree with Modern Hinduism. Even when I create articles explicitly stating that this the Krishna Conscious belief you have people saying it is biased and should be deleted. It is not biased. It is the Krishna Conscious belief. With that logic the article Jesus in Islam is also biased because it only talks about the Islamic beliefs about Jesus, but obviously nobody believes this because obviously if it says Jesus in Islam it is only supposed to be about Islamic beliefs concerning Jesus, in the same way if the articles says Jesus in Krishna Consciousness it is only supposed to be about Krishna Conscious beliefs concerning Jesus. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs on Wikipedia but Krishna Consciousness is persecuted. Why is this religion being persectuted? It doesn’t makes sense why is an article like Jesus in Islam okay but an article like Jesus in Krishna Consciousness is not? I have cited many good and reliable sources showing the Krishna Consciousness view of Jesus, just like the article Jesus in Islam shows the Islamic belief in Jesus, but because it is Krishna Conscious, Wikipedia does not like it so it destroys and erases the article and blocks me again and again everytime I try to represent the Krishna Conscious beliefs. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs but Krishna Conscious beliefs are not allowed on anything except the ISKCON page? Is Wikipedia Anti-Krishna Consciousness. All I know is I live in America and in this country we have Freedom of Religion and we not censor one religion but let other religions be expressed. If you have Jesus in Islam but not Jesus in Krishna Consciousness that is unfair and Un-American. I do not think Wikipedia should be allowed persecute Krishna Consciousness yet let other religions express their beliefs. Wikipedia does not want Krishna Consciousness views to be expressed so they call ISKCON Hindu but if you want to mention “Hindu” beliefs in Hindu Cosmology they through such a fit and block you, yet they insist it is Hindu and will not let you say otherwise. What is this hypocrisy. If I were to create a page entitled Krishna Consciouness Cosmology and provide good reliable sources showing how Krishna Consciousness views Cosmology it would be immediately erased because Wikipedia will not let Krishna Conscious views be expressed because they hate Krishna Consciousness but they will allow other religions to be expressed and will allow Mormon Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Buddhist Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology etc. I cannot include Krishna Conscious beliefs in the Hindu Cosmology article because even though they say it is Hindu then they say its not Hindu and if I try to create an article called Krishna Conscious Cosmology they will not allow it because Krishna Consciousness is the one religion that Wikipedia hates and will not allow to be expressed yet every other religion can have one Buddhist Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology, but no not Krishna Conscious cosmology. The only way that Wikpedia can censor Krishna Conscious beliefs is by first not allowing anyone to remove the word Hindu from the ISKCON article. They will not allow you to say change Hindu Scriptures to Vedic Scriptures and they will not allow you to change Hindu religion to Krishna Consciousness on the ISKCON article. The reason they do this is because they want to censor Krishna Consciousness beliefs by calling them Hindu so that nobody knows there is actually a religion called Krishna Consciousness who have belefis that differ from Krishna Consciousness. This is exactly who they censor Krishna Consciousness. First they deny it exists as a religion by claiming it Hinduism and then when we want to express Krishna Consciousness beliefs in Hindu articles they do not allow this and deny it so people are not aware of Krishna Consciousness beliefs. In this way Krishna Conscious belefis are never expressed and nobody knows about them. Since they are called Hindu everybody assumes that Krishna Conscious people are Hindu, believe the same things Hindus believe in and that there is no difference because Wikipedia will not allow us to call Krishna Consciousness different from Hindu and when we want to express are beliefs in Hindu articles they will not allow it so that people are unaware of them and think they are just all Hindu, and they will not allow creation of Krishna Conscious articles like Jesus in Islam, because then people would be aware of these beliefs, but they don’t want that because they want to persecute Krishna Consciousness by calling it Hindu and then not allowing inclusion of its beliefs in any Hindu article because then people will know it is different. This is the only way they can extinguish Krishna Consciousness, by denying it exists by merging into Hinduism and then denying what they call Hindu beliefs to be expressed in a Hindu article. They then say it is not Hindu, but if you change Hindu from Krishna Consciousness they will say it is Hindu, and if you create your article about Krishna Consciousess they delete it because they do not want people to know Krishna Consciousness exists as a unique belief system. Well this is America and I don’t care what Wikipedia does it can block me as many times as it wants but I will still keep editing every day of my life. Do you know why I can do this? Sure Wikipedia can block my computer, but it cannot IP ban every computer at my University, and every computer at the Public Libaray, and every computer I have access to because if you count all of the computers I have access to at my University and at the Public Library near my house it would come out to be like 100,000 computers. This means that even if you blocked the IP address of a computer I used every day it would take you 300 years to block every computer I have access to at my University and the Public Libarary which I go to everyday. For this reason I will continue to edit everyday and you can keep blocking but You will have to keep doing so for 300 years, and your kids will have to continue, doing so and then your grandkids will help to keep reverting my blocks because I have “FREE” access to so many computers at my UNIVERSITY and LIBRARY that you could block my IP Address on a different computer every day for 300 years and you still could not stop me from editing. Even if I die I have people who will continue editing every day and if they did they also have people so this could go on for thousands of years. Bottom line you cannot stop me from editing because I can edit every single day, which I WILL DO! And even if you block my IP everyday its not a big deal because I will just use a different computer in the library or a different computer at my University, or a different computer at my House, or a computer at my friends house, etc. Do you not understand I have free access to so many computers? If you block the IP of all the hundreds of thousands of computers at my University and the libraray, and my house and all my friends houses, I will just go to another library where there are thousands of more computers that you can block, if You block all the IP addresses of all computers in my city, then I will use computers in another city, its not a big deal. If you try to block all the computers in my state. I will go to another state. If you block all the computers in my country, I will use a computer in a different country. You cannot block all the IP addresses of every public computer in the world. There are millions and millions of computers that I have free access to and mark my words I will continue to edit all of these articles every single day of my life which might be another 70 years since I’m young, so probably much longer than most of you will be alive for and if I die no problem I will have people editing all the same articles every day just like I did and you cannot block every public computer in the world, so you can keep persecuting my religion and blocking my IP but when the next day comes I will just use another computer at my library and college and you can block that to. And you can do this every day for thousands of years. What’s the use? Just give up and stop persecuting my religion because you will never win and I will never give up. So please stop persecuting my religion, it doesn’t matter to me I will keep editing every day whether or not you agree with me or not and we have already established that I have enough access to convenient and free computers so it is in your best interest to stop, because what will you gain? I will keep editing every day whether you like it or not? You can’t kill me, so give up and stop persecuting my religion. Thank You.

@95.133 There is no way I'm reading all of that. Look, scientific articles are about science. They're not about Hinduism. We don't allow Christianity in those articles either. If your new articles were deleted, there was probably good cause, but you would have to take that up with an editor involved in the AfD request. I am not one of those editors. If you really want to add in content which you think is lacking, your first step should be to find a boatload of reliable sources which explicitly talk about that content. Discuss those sources with other editors individually, and ask where they should be placed. I'll tell you right now: No one is persecuting your religion.

Furthermore, threatening to continually vandalize wikipedia for the next 300 years is only going to get you ridiculed and banned. I'd move on to another approach. Jess ^talk _cs 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wandered over here from the Age of the Earth article that I fixed. This line in particular: "and then your grandkids will help to keep reverting my blocks" is GOLD! —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Topic Ban for Gniniv for all topics related to Christianity, Evolution, Biology, Medicine, Creationism, Intelligent Design....

What is your opinion on starting an ANI to block this user from his continued disruptive unhelpful edits? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If it were totally my call, I'd wait until the next incident. I provided a final warning on his talk page for a list of issues, so any further violations would be a last straw. That said, he's gotten plenty of warnings over the course of months, and I would fully support a topic ban if you started the request. Jess ^talk _cs 04:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Waiting might be prudent, plus it's going to take a significant amount of time to wade through months of edits for an overwhelming display of diff's to support the topic ban. If it comes to that, help with the research would be much appreciated. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I'll do what I can if it comes to that. Thanks for your involvement here. Jess ^talk _cs 04:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hes back at it again.. [1] — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured he would be. There's generally a host of "contributions" to revert around 1 am my time. I'm almost starting to work it into my schedule. Jess ^talk _cs 14:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Something else

Don't make defamatory comments on my talk page. Follow your own advice. Thanks. Tavengen (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what defamation is. That was a warning for assuming bad faith and attacking other users in an off-topic discussion... all 3 of which are against policy on WP. It was also months ago. Please just be respectful and follow the rules, and we won't have a problem. Thanks. Jess ^talk _cs 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If I didn't know what defamation meant I wouldn't have said it, apparently you don't know the meaning of the word though, by your needless explanation of what your comment meant. I didn't do any of those things. Again, follow your own advice and be respectful and follow the rules, and we won't have a problem. I did not have access to the internet for several months, or I would have replied earlier, but that's irrelevant. Tavengen (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. However, I would highly suggest actually reading the linked policies, since you were warned by multiple editors for your behavior, and regardless of how well you think you were behaving, responses like this and behavior like this are against policy and are very likely to get you blocked.

Jess

_talk
edits

21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TE

Ending discussion and editing of contentious topics until furthur notice...--Gniniv (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that before. But ok. Thanks for letting me know I guess. Jess ^talk _cs 05:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You and your pals are being disruptive (per WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT) -- just like some of your "opponents" were being not that long ago. I'll not refrain from pointing this out just because you know how to dig up patronizing templates to place on my talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Asking you to back up your assertions with data is not disruptive. Furthermore, I'm not sure how you think this comment addresses an ABF warning. Jess ^talk _cs 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Charles Darwin establishing evolution?

Charles Darwin theorized or came up with the theory of evolution. Changing it back to "established" is both biased and untrue. The reason I change it back is because it is incorrect. Only pure ignorance compels people to say that he "established" anything. The definition of "established" is an accomplished fact. You cannot say that the theory of evolution is a fact, because, after all, it is still a theory. You people please stop changing my editing back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezob (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is as much of a fact as the theory of gravity is. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I specified in my edit summary, this has been discussed ad naseum on the talk page, and is firmly established consensus. If you wish to change this section, you need to first participate in a discussion on the talk page. Before you do, I would advise you to read Scientific theory and Evolution as theory and fact. Whether or not you choose to participate, what you are doing right now is edit warring, which is against policy. I would advise you to stop, or you could be blocked from editing. Jess ^talk _cs 03:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, I would also suggest reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as comments like this could get you into trouble on other areas of the site. Best of luck Jess ^talk _cs 03:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jess,

I've had a Wikipedia account for about 5 years. Why are you bothering me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezob (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bothering you? I welcomed you to the site because you had a blank talkpage, and issued you a warning for edit warring, which is against policy. I'm glad you've been registered since 2006, but you only have a handful of contributions, which still makes you rather new to WP. I would suggest looking over the policies I referred you to so you can get the most out of contributing.

Jess

_talk
edits

13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was rude. Thanks for the welcome. I'm not new to Wikipedia and I have read the policies but thanks anyways. I didn't make my page elaborate on purpose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezob (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Reading tone is sometimes hard in text. It's generally good to assume good faith regardless of tone to avoid those kinds of troubles. Anyway, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck!

Jess

_talk
edits

21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Flood legends

The move was done per discussion. Arlen22 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not done per discussion, and you know full well it was not. There's been no discussion from any other editors since you were repeatedly warned and told there was no consensus.

Jess

_talk
edits

12:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Trusty Helpdesk

I hope to make use of your experience once more. I have run into some people that I feel are intentionally influencing admins with their POV (obtained on the nl.wiki btw). I am not the one in trouble (yet), but I think that the reason these individuals can get away with their behavior is that on the wiki it is normal to judge issues as a total. That usually means that any transgressions since the initial transgression are forgiven. Since I have found these two interesting sources:

1)"Impartiality is the first duty of a judge; before he gives an opinion or sits in judgment in a cause he ought to be certain that he has no bias for or against either of the parties; and if he has any (the slightest) interest in the cause he is disqualified from sitting as judge and when he is aware of such interest he ought himself to refuse to sit on the case."

I understand that this particular case may not be as serious as the impartiality of judges, however, the same principle applies. That is why the wikipedia guidelines clearly stipulate (at misuse of admin tools)

2):"Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

To be unbiased is the first duty of a judge. That is saying something, because here on the wikipedia any transgression that is made in response to a transgression seems to be 'forgiven' on the basis of the previous transgression....which is what bias is.

So, my question is where I make my case so that this situation can change. It would eliminate much unhappiness, misuse of admin powers and thereby create for a nicer atmosphere in which to create an encyclopedia. It would also go a long way to creating an impartial encyclopedia....

I hope you know this answer. Thanks in advance.

--Faust (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Just wanted to say I dropped by the atheism talk page after an absence of a few months and appreciate what you tried to do in June and July. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While this is an issue I still very much care about, I simply haven't had the time to wade back in. There are a multitude of editors with very heated opinions, which makes it hard to push through any change. I still very much think that the best path is to come up with a lead which describes "Atheism" without resorting to the 3 definitions most prevalent in dictionaries, since ranking those 3 separate definitions is convoluted and that discussion is ultimately at an impasse. I still like my last proposal, which was a contribution from another editor, but it seems there was some objection to it (on what grounds I forget). So, our options would seem to be:

1. Argue for that proposal, and establish consensus one way or another
2. Come up with another proposal which describes the term without using the 3 defs of absence, rejection and position.
3. Get explicit clarification on policy which states whether lead definitions should be ranked per weight. (I tried, but wasn't able to do this)

Again, I really don't have the time to re-involve myself right now... but if you were interested in jumping in, I'd suggest one of those three. Let me know if I can be of any help! :)

Jess

_talk
edits

15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bleiburg

The Bleiburg massacre was an actual fact. The web has too much sources showing what I'm saying. But, yes, maybe I have to be less combative, but you gotta understand me what indignation causes it to me when I had a relative that escaped from there and was a witness and something that causes more indignation is that I can't change the statement on the article! --190.172.198.184 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry such a horrible incident is so personal for you. However, you'll have to try to separate your personal feelings on the subject for a moment to be able to collaboratively work with other editors here. One thing to note is that wikipedia reports what is verifiable, not what is fact. It could be that what is written there is incorrect, but it is reliably sourced. Your best bet for changing that content is to find reliable sources which support your change, and then suggest them to other editors on the article talk page. You also may wish to read WP:AFG and WP:CIVIL regarding tone. Typically, phrasing things calmly with respect will engage more editors to support your requests than assuming the worst and attacking an article outright. Again, welcome to WP. I hope you stay! Please ask if you have any questions! Good luck!

Jess

_talk
edits

02:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome messages and for your words, I can see there's reasonable people here. I'm sorry if I was so much offensive, is that I'm not an english native speaker and sometimes I dont know how the people will recieve what I said. I will consider your offer of join wikipedia. Bye --190.172.198.184 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

are we now censors?

(→Correlation with education levels: Undid comment from 210.56.81.96 - wiki-conspiracy jargon which doesn't improve article.) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. The anon's comment was entirely unrelated to the topic being discussed, as well as the article. The bit about wikipedia trying to ban Christians from the internet and/or stick them in death camps sums it up pretty nicely. Such comments should, per policy, be removed. Jess_talk|_edits 07:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame wp has degenerated into this...the comment needed to be replied to, not deleted. And who is to decide what is permissible? No wonder that after 25K+ edits I've backed off. One question: would you have removed the comment were it not from an anon? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP? Wikipedia policy is 'who' decides what is permissible. Nothing about his post was related to the article in any way, and replying to his wiki-conspiracy nonsense would have been equally against policy. It is acceptable, at best, to warn a user to stay on topic before hatting or reverting soapboxing, not to engage it and fan the flames. That he was anonymous has nothing to do with it. That he was trolling does. Jess_talk|_edits 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on;y slightly further as my comments may be seen as soapboxing. Suffice it to say that "this ain't yer Daddy's Wikipedia no more". Bear in mind that "policy" is written by people, not by some deity. Happy editing! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on user talk pages aren't generally seen as soapboxing, both because it is user space and because I have the right to remove it (or request a stop to it) if I see fit. Discussion on articles, on the other hand, do have restrictions, and need to be kept on the topic of the article content to maintain legibility and order. All that to say, I'm fine discussing this so long as accusations of censorship and anon prejudice aren't being thrown around, though frankly I'm not sure what else I can say besides directing you to the relevant policy pages. You are of course right that policies here are written by other editors, which is precisely why you're welcome to go to those policy pages to contribute if you find them objectionable. However, whether or not you decide to do that, so long as we have policies in place, they do need to be followed. Jess_talk|_edits 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that it isn't soapboxing on a user page: that was gentle sarcasm. Also, before assuming I've no clue about WP, please check out my edit history -- I've been around for a good while now, have, as I said, 25K edits and four featured articles to my credit. However, I have been away for over a year and things have changed -- in some ways for the better, in some ways not.

Nonetheless, I'm not "mad" at you, or even saying you did something wrong, I'm just not happy with some of the changes I see. I apologise if you took offense to anything I wrote as it was not my intent to offend you. My comment in re the anon was more rhetorical, and I do think established editors are more likely to dismiss comments by anons as they are often sheer vandalism (but hardly are they always) -- I know I can be guilty of assuming the worst about anons (I know not WP:AGF).

Again, sorry for any offense taken or any grief caused. Peace, OK?&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of your edit history. I checked it when you first accused me of censorship, and you explicitly pointed it out the next reply. In any case, it's fine. No hard feelings. We all have those days. Welcome back to WP! Jess_talk|_edits 15:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jess. It truly was a bad day. And I was incorrect, it's only 23K edits ... oops. Anyway, take care and keep up the good work. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. You too! :) Jess_talk|_edits 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

signature

Hi, wondering if anyone has discussed your signature with you before? It seems to span more than one row of text which might not be a good approach. Wikipedia:Signatures has more info on accepted practices regarding signatures. You may want to consider a change in your signature. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that is a side effect of trying to get the name/edit/talk links lined up. Unfortunately there's a small limit on the number of characters allowed in a sig. If I had a few more to work with, I'd be able to handle that... I've been trying to find a workaround, but I may just switch the sig over to something else altogether.

Jess

_talk
edits

14:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it for the time being, until I get that issue fixed. :) Jess_talk|_edits 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

However, as a note, while I don't want my sig to span two lines, it isn't actually against anything in the sig policy. I agree that it's kind of annoying, and someone may consider proposing that it be added to the list of things to avoid. Jess_talk|_edits 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For starters I think it may run afoul of the nutshell portion saying "do not make the signature too large", and there are also recommendations against line breaks. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The recommendation against line breaks is to avoid disrupting surrounding text, not to avoid multiple lines. In any case, I'll probably play with the style more in the next few days and go with something entirely different, so I suppose it's a moot point. Thanks for your suggestion anyway though! :) Jess_talk|_edits 16:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom

Hi Mann jess

I see that in this eries of edits you removed 49 articles from Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom on the grounds that "LGBT is more neutral". You have may have a good case to make about the neutrality of the category, but Category:Gay politicians is a long-established category and as far as I can see from the few I have checked, "gay" is an accurate categorisation of these people. If you want the category to be deleted or upmerged, please propose this at WP:CFD, but do not just depopulate because you think it is misconceived; please seek consensus first.

I will now repopulate the category, reverting your edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't depopulate the category. An anon went through and depopulated "LGBT politicians from the UK" in favor of "Gay politicians from the UK". I checked both pages and saw no consensus for a name change, so I reverted. If he'd like to change 'LGBT' to 'Gay', then he should discuss that change on a relevant talk page before making wholesale changes to 100s of pages. Please don't re-revert all of those changes... the reverts alone took forever, and I'd really prefer not to go through that process again. Jess_talk|_edits 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

-sigh- It seems you already went through and re-reverted. Per BRD there should be a discussion before changes (particularly mass changes like that) are re-introduced. Also Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom is not a long-established category, as it was introduced by this user this month, when he depopulated Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. There is perhaps a case to be made for standardizing nomenclature if Category:Gay politicians has been around for a while, but that's a discussion which should have been had prior to the change. :/ Jess_talk|_edits 19:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The anon didn't depopulate; they sub-categorised on the intersection of two categories. (Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom is a sub-category of Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom and Category:Gay politicians, because it is an intersection of the two)

WP:BRD specifically urges caution wrt categories, because once depopulated they can be hard to re-populate. Just as with creating artricles, there is no requirement to seek consensus before creating categs, but consensus should be sought before deleting them.

If you want to have a discussion, WP:CFD is the place for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of categories in WP:BRD. I do, however, see quite a bit of mention of issues pertaining to this new category on the relevant policy pages, including WP:Categorization/Gender and WP:Overcategorization, which both state that new subcategories should be of notability separate from their parent category, and should be of an appropriate size. This seems to fail both criteria.

Though I do see more than a few potential issues, I'm not sure that I disapprove of the new category enough to contest it (or, for that matter, at all). However, for my reference, I would like to see a link to policy whereby my reversion of the change was unwarranted. If, indeed, WP:BRD doesn't apply to categorization, that's something I'd like to know going forward. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 20:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the guidance I was referring to is at WP:BOLD#Category namespace. The guidance does, IMVRHO, fully reflect the general consensus that depopulating a valid category should be done only after seeking consenus at WP:CFD, where the guidances says "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." Similar constraints do not apply to creating a category, however inadvisable that creation may appear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on those links, I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion that depopulating 2 categories for inclusion in a brand new one should be done without any discussion, but reverting the change should require consensus. However, I appreciate you explaining, and if something like this comes up again I'll keep in mind that other editors do feel this way. I don't have any strong feelings about this particular case, so I'll leave it be. Thanks again for following up! See you around :) Jess_talk|_edits 21:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I still think that you are missing the distinction between depopulating a category, and sub-categorising; the latter is what happened here (see WP:SUBCAT).

Anyway, thanks for a v friendly discussion :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pls explain your hatted discussion edit of my deletion of Issue discussion

Thx

(This is a friendly . . .)

Sturunner (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WP policy allows us to remove vandalism, personal attacks and disruptive behavior from talk pages, but in all other cases we should try to maintain as much content as possible. In those cases, hatting the discussion is preferable, as it prevents the discussion from continuing (which is the goal) but keeps it technically there so no content is lost. An alternative approach used by a few other editors is to physically move the discussion to the user's talk page. I don't like that, personally. As a general rule, I tend to revert edits which are inflammatory, intended only to troll, or are purposefully disruptive. For all other off-topic comments, I either refer the user to WP:NOTFORUM or (for involvement of multiple editors) hat the section. In this case, three editors took part, all acting in good faith, so a hat was the way to go. Jess_talk|_edits 04:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

William Lane Craig

You've left so many information on Dr. William Lane Craig out in your wiki page that you and Theo Warner have done of him. There is no mention that he was president of EPS. There is no mention of him being a current teacher at TED. There is dishonest information of him being a progressive creationist (even the cite you reference says he's not!). There is no mention of some of the issues that he has with Plantinga. You just want to ruin Dr. Craig's reputation like all the other crackpots out there. You're not fair and you're a liar. Your article is biased, sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaseMcAllister248 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the article, you need to discuss it on the article talk page. What you're doing now is evading a block to continue an edit war, for which you will be blocked again. After your block expires (which may or may not be extended because of this), I would suggest you calmly and politely bring up your concerns here. Please read through WP:AGF and WP:V first. Jess_talk|_edits 08:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Irreducible Complexity

Hey Jess, I just got your message about the irreducible complexity article. I'm not sure what you are referring to with regard to reliable sources. I provided two sources to support the revisions I made. I was making claims about what Intelligent Design proponents are arguing and cited some of the articles they've written on the subject. Please explain my error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, most importantly you need to make sure you're not edit warring. Per WP:BRD, when you propose new content and it is reverted, the next step is to go to the article talk page to discuss. Re-introducing the content without discussion is edit warring, which will get you in trouble. I'd be happy to discuss your proposal in more depth on the article talk page, if you would like to post there with reasons why you think your content is needed.

I would suggest you read through a couple policy pages as well, so that you understand more fully what things will likely be discussed in that convo. A few of the most important are WP:Weight which describes how much 'time' we should give to various views, WP:Fringe and WP:PSCI which talk about how to handle non-mainstream views and pseudoscience, and WP:RS which describes what constitutes a reliable source, and for what purposes (not all sources are reliable, and not all reliable sources are appropriate for talking about all topics).

My recommendation would be to read through those guidelines, and then make a convincing case for your content on the talk page for others to discuss. If you can establish consensus there, then we can add that content back in. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jess. The way professors satirize Wikipedia you would think that it was a chaotic, immoderate deluge of unregulated, and unreliable information. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that there is actually a editorial process! :) I'll get the hang of it eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm glad you decided to come by and contribute. I hope you like it and decide to stay! Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. Most of us are pretty friendly :) Jess_talk|_edits 22:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Mann jess, for watching my user page. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just ran into it from watching our shared ip vandal. No trouble at all :) All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

my editing of "evolution and the baha'i faith.

My edit of this article was rejected with the instruction to use a "reliable source". The source I used, Abdul Baha, is considered an inerrant source on all subjects. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewlabonte (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We need reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. I think you will find that your source does not meet that criteria. If you have any further questions, please ask. Jess_talk|_edits 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation

There are currently 2,503 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. 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. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Bible

Thank you for reverting my overdone tags, I often forget that policy. I was curious if you want to join Wikipedia: WikiProject Bible? You seem like a editor who is faithful to keep Wikipedia policy enforced, and several Project related articles are suffering from lack of good authorship.--Gniniv (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is your official invitation:

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Bible The goal of WikiProject Bible is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Bible available on Wikipedia. WP:BIBLE as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or interpretation of the Bible, but prefers that all Biblical content is fairly and accurately represented.

I was actually quite surprised to see the Bible article was so poorly done. Your cite needed templates were overdone, but you're absolutely right that the refs need substantial improvement. I'm going through it now to make various improvements now. I'm not sure I have the time to devote to the wikiproject as a whole, but I'll probably run through most of its articles at some point to do some copediting/etc. Thanks for the suggestion :) Jess_talk|_edits 08:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Biology

I disagree with your revert, the head sentence on that section is specifically describing Natural Selection, not Evolution. Is there a possible compromise solution?--Gniniv (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:BRD, the next step would be for you to take your objection to the talk page for other editors to discuss. However, the statement does describe evolution broadly rather than "natural selection" specifically. Other means of speciation (all within the umbrella of Evolution) are possible. See, for example, Artificial Selection. Feel free to take it to the talk page if you'd like and we can talk about it further. Jess_talk|_edits 09:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For unwaveringly supporting and editing articles to WP:Content standards. Gniniv (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, it looks like your signature partly overlaps text on lines above and below where it appears. Would you mind adjusting the vertical size of the box a tad? Tia and cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, does it? I'm not seeing a problem on my browser. I'll play with it a bit. Thanks for letting me know :) Jess_talk|_edits 09:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I will make this line a bit longer to check and test whether it overlaps here. Apparently it does not. In your reply in the preceding section it did. Strange.... DVdm (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Oh well, I was planning on changing the style anyway, so if it's causing trouble, this would be a good time. Thanks again! :) Jess_talk|_edits 09:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It Seems to only overlap text in lines in the same paragraph, so in practice it only happens with lines above the sig, as there usually aren't any following, and thus below, the sig. Enjoy experimenting :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait what?

What is a legitimate programming language? As far as I know, if you can compile and code in said language, then that is enough to verify it "legitimate". Also even so, I believe they should remain on the Linux page under "Available Languages:". Regardless of legitimacy, they are still programming languages that are available for use on those systems, therefore, why not allow people to know that their programming language is indeed supported on that system? Lioncash (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Brainfuck and Whitespace primarily, neither of which were designed for actual use. Furthermore, while they can be compiled on Linux if extra software is installed, they aren't available "out of the box". Both of these are reasons not to include them in the "available programming languages" section, particularly within the infobox. That said, per WP:BRD, the next place to go would be to the talk page for the article, here, where you might receive input from other editors. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see now, thanks for clearing that up :). Although it does depend on distribution whether or not it can be compiled out of the box. Lioncash (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Some distributions, of course, provide support for other languages out of the box, which would make listing them on those pages appropriate, but Linux as a whole doesn't, so what goes on that page should be representative of all of Linux. Anyway, welcome to WP! Feel free to ask if you have any questions. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 04:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert on Cryptozoology

I atttempted to put a compromise edit between the two warring points of view on Cryptozoology. Since you seem to find that it was not neutral enough, can you please suggest how I could improve that paragraph? I was not intentionally edit warring, just trying to compromise.--Gniniv (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There were a number of issues with your edits, but most on point, you directly re-made the reverted change. As far as I can tell, every editor on the talk page has been against that version besides the original editor, which is far from consensus. Please discuss it fully on the talk page and get support from other editors before changing the section again. Jess_talk|_edits 05:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, thank you for reverting the edit, my re-make of a reverted change was unintentional. Can you please discuss what issues you saw in my paragraph compromise?--Gniniv (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time tonight (I'm out of town for the holiday and just dropping in briefly), but I'm not the only one participating on the talk page, or opposed to the change. Feel free to get support from those editors on a new version (but, per WP:BRD, do that before adding anything new). As a note, your position appears to be that Cryptozoology is a branch of Zoology. If that is the case, a ref would help, preferably citing a zoologist, zoology literature, or an accepted scientific definition of the term. Jess_talk|_edits 05:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe I had one of the references cite Karl Shuker who is a prominent zoologist who supports cryptozoology. I will double check to be sure and will get consensus.--Gniniv (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck :) Jess_talk|_edits 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi! About that vandalism incident. I noticed that the article Duma had a template that was misplaced and I assumed it was vandalism. If I was mistaken in that assumption, I apologise for calling it such. Obviously it was a template accidently put on that article from Duma, Syria.--Gniniv (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You should check out WP:Vandalism. Vandalism has a strict definition, and a misplaced template is absolutely not in it. Persistent misuse of the word is seen as bad faith and will be included in any behavior-related discussions, so it would be a good idea to understand exactly what it means before you tag it again. Jess_talk|_edits 14:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Bigfoot problem

I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles (Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing rule of the majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat. I appreciate those editors who are of a similar mindset.--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded to this on the ANI thread. Also, self-sanctioning yourself on bigfoot articles and in turn going back to evolution articles (which you previously self-sanctioned yourself on) isn't much of a sanction, is it? Jess_talk|_edits 06:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My conclusion is (in WP:GOODFAITH) that I can't edit (with my convictions) in a way that absolutely conforms to the WP:Systematic bias present on Wikipedia. The simple truth is that I am editing with pretty much the same methodology as many editors, though my philosophical perspective does not conform to the majority. Since Wikipedia is (in practice, though not in policy) a democracy when it comes to editing (whichever view has the most support survives-e.g. Natural Selection), my POV is disfavorable to the majority of editors, and is therefore removed. I agree that many (most when I first started editing) of my edits are in need of improvement and I thank all the editors who helped mentor me through my first months of WP:TE and unsourced contributions. Since my worldview (WP:WORLDVIEW) is different from the overwhelming majority of editors, the overwhelming majority of my edits are reverted, even when they are properly sourced to their authors. I have no malice against Wikipedia for being this way (Its one of the oft-overlooked consequences of a "free" Encyclopedia) but something obviously needs to change. I was hoping my edits would draw attention to the fact that a large amount of Systematic bias is present on this site, and hoping that it would induce organizational changes to benefit significant minority viewpoints. As it seems the rule-by-majority still stands, I will bow out of editing until furthur notice. You will see that my user has been retired. I am proud of my accomplishments (the revival of WP:CRYZOO being at the top of the list) and I enjoyed the critical and challenging enviroment Wikipedia offered. All I can say is that I held to my convictions and I hope that what I did will inspire others to do the same. Finus...--Gniniv (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded on ANI again. Please just keep this there. There's no reason to copy/paste your responses all over the site. I'm watching that thread. Jess_talk|_edits 17:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5