This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
sorry but i'm not sure a reliable as such source can be found for something that is common knowledge such as this. what would be the proper procedure? i figured that since the wikipedia article links and cites it would be considered a good source as such. -- RebAvi ( talk) 10:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
Thanks for your advice. You may be right about the need for citations but I believe the normal policy is to tag this rather than simply delete the addition in its entirely. I personally feel that citations are not absolutely essential in this case, since the argument is simply based on the uncontrovertable plot sequence of the original texts. However, the key points are not my own so I will shortly restore the contribution with appropriate citations.
Please feel free to contact me about this if necessary.
Regards,
Sineaste -- Sineaste ( talk) 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That was actually me I edited my page from the public library. I did not feel like logging in, I was using my ZuneHD so it would have been time consuming. But I was planning to check if you could make your personal page only editable to autoconfirmed users or something.-- Nishauncom ( talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a bunch edits by an IP assuming vandalism but now I'm not sure. Could you take a look and revert me if I made a mistake. Slightsmile ( talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We need to work with him, he seems to be an expert on the subject who doesn't understand how we work. He could be an asset. He's responded on my talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jess, I thought that I was adding useful information to the "Genesis Creation Narrative" site. Anastasius of Sinai (Anastasius Sinaita) discusses the Genesis creation narrative extensively in 12 books in his Hexaemeron. His Hexaemeron also contains citations of many previous commentators on the creation narrative: from Philo to Basil the Great. Thus his Hexaemeron, in many ways, is a compendium of commentaries on the creation narrative by Fathers of the Church prior to 700. Most students and scholars do not realize this, because his Hexaemeron was not published in the original Greek and was not translated into a modern language until 2007. Anastasius himself, despite his enormous importance in the Middle Ages, is often not taught in universities, because critical editions of his works have only begun to be published. Thus I also added a site about his life and works in general.
If, however, these two links still seem gratuitous, I would be happy to remove them. I do not want to be contentious. I enjoy your work on Wikipedia too much! (I did not see, at first, who had removed the two links.)
So let me know what you would like.
Thanks for your patience,
Clementkuehn ( talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
[1] Dougweller ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous editor (the same one) reverted the edit back. I suspect this could be an ongoing issue. Your intervention is kindly requested. Obamafan70 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
He's a candidate, I think having him listed as a candidate makes perfect sense. If he weren't a candidate he wouldn't even have a wiki page, so I don't see the sense in trying to mask this fact. His opponent has a page very similar to what I had posted and I don't see you jumping in there to make revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAndrewClarkC123 ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:FMCCcampus.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 03:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FMCCcampus.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 07:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Efiiamagus/The_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument_(book)
Please feel free to edit and contribute to this. Efiiamagus ( talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
ip addresses are reused by many people
you should not attack someone who happened to get assigned the ip used by someone else to make an edit that you dont like
i never attacked anybody unless you consider an edit an attack because that was a change , perhaps that you disagree with , or perhaps cause you dont want your golden words changed by anybody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.103 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for uploading File:FMCCcampus.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
soapboxing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I posted on the article talk page already....
NO VALID REASON TO KEEP REVERTING IT, IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING SO BLATANTLY POV AND BIASED, IN THE LEAD.
And treating it like a forum, to do nothing but bash, and gripe, instead of presenting anything neutrally.
Saying "pseudoscience" especially right off the bat in the lead is anything but "neutral". I simply re-worded it with a more neutral unbiased and factual tone. With no pro or con either way.
That's why to many people, Wikipedia does not have the credibility that it should have. But how is my re-wording of the lead "biased"? JUST HOW SPECIFICALLY? All you did was assert it, but didn't explain or demonstrate it. I never worded as either pro or con. But simply NEUTRAL.
"Icons of Evolution is a creationist work by biologist Jonathan Wells that attempts to assert that often-cited evidences for Darwinian evolution theory are really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory. The book has been rejected by the majority in the scientific community." "vitriol"??
There's NO pro or con bias either way in my wording.
Leave your biased junk off of WP articles. It's in violation of the NUMBER ONE pillar of WP Policy. NEUTRALITY IN WORDING, with "NPOV" summarized in WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV
"Icons of Evolution is a pseudoscientific[1] book" not insulting, biased, vitriolic, neurotic, snarky? To many people it's NOT "pseudoscientific", but simply a book that challenges certain Darwinist talking points and supposed "proofs" of the theory.
Again, the first pillar of Wikipedia editing is NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW...
|
Ok I shortened the points here, (and on the talk page of the article), a lot more, if that makes you happy... because you don't like what's being said you call it ranting and soap-boxing, and blank the whole thing basically. try addressing the points instead of whining about the length or whatever.... Anyway, I made it a lot shorter... With less "soap-boxing" or whatever you saw it as.
The basic point is that my edits were good-faith AND SHOWED NO BIAS EITHER WAY. If a Young Earther came on and made the intro pro-Wells, I WOULD REMOVE THAT TOO. That was my basic point. Try addressing that specifically. Thank you. 68.237.215.48 ( talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your preservation of my comment on 91.110.10.177's flaky spelling. The amusing thing is that he didn't correct his own misspelling from which I was quoting! -- Jmc ( talk) 18:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mann jess. I'm not sure if you noticed it, but in a WP:SMS I noted that I already have taken the issue to talk--not article talk, though, because the issue isn't specific to this article, but rather guideline talk (at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section)#Simple descriptions), because the problem concerns the interpretation of a guideline. As for this article, the title might not be "particularly long", but I don't think that "short" and "long" correspond all that well to "simplicity" and "complexity". A long steel rod is no more complex than a short one, and a tall person isn't necessarily more sophisticated than a short one. The strongest similarity among the terms appears to be that both "short and long" and "simple and complex" are both highly subjective judgments. On MoS talk, though, I've suggested a more objective demarcation scheme. If you have any questions, concerns, or objections regarding my proposal, then I invite you to bring them up on MoS talk. Regards, Cosmic Latte ( talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Jess, noticed that, in your participation in what YOU idendtified as an edit war, you admonished me not to edit war. Do you get it? So, while you're edit waring, you say, in effect "Please don't edit war, but instead allow me to edit war and win",,, to which I have a simple reply. Starts with an "N".... ends with an "O"... NO. Get it? No! No, you don't have some authority that I don't have. No, you don't get to set the ejenda. No, you can't argue that I'm PA, and I'm not allowed to respond. NO. Get it? NO Steve kap ( talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware you had closed it. There was an edit conflict so I had to copy-paste and reinsert it. Also, thank you for not merely deleting my answer to Walter Görlitz. Rmcfanatic ( talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You reverted on global warming, asserting that you something appeared to be original research. You didn't assume good faith. Are you knowledgeable enough to KNOW it is original research? If not, why didn't you just use citation needed. If you had read the source for the original statement, you would know that the same source supports the new statement.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 19:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thought I should let you know that I just quoted you in this thread at ANI, with respect to user Gniniv who, after a three-day retirement, reappeared under wp:cleanstart as user Terra Novus, and whose signature reads "Novus Orator". Best, – OhioStandard ( talk) 08:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
While I am a qualified engineer and have programmed computers since the days of the Eliot 803, I don't do that now.
I am not interested in messing around with four tildes curly brackets and square brackets.
These days I communicate in English -- a high level language used in the Apollo article.
I found a reference to a YouTube reference that was dead.
You have reinstated the dead link.
What the goodness are you playing at??
If you want people to contribute don't expect them to learn a new language. I am not prepared to learn Wiki-gibberish; I speak English, French, German, Spanish and Italian. Not tildes and curly brackets.
Strongly suggest that you correct that link as it destroys your anti-conspiracy case. Indeed make the case for conspiracy. I see that someone says that the video is 'all over the Internet' -- Eyes glaze-over at that stage!!
Not that I care, I don't know either way, I was just trying to research.
Wiki has a dreadful reputation, you know for hobby-horses and single-issue soap-boxers.
Thanks for listening. Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemainD ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This system has to be the most user-unfriendly system since DOS died. If you'd like to reply to my last comment then kindly reply to me as I have no intention of spending the next hour finding out how to add you to my watchlist.
If the Wiki wants knowledgeable people to contribute to the Wiki then you must let them communicate in ordinary language.
A butcher might know a lot about meat but not be able or willing to mess about with odd symbols that might not even be on his keyboard but the butcher's opinion, on the subject of meat, is of far more use than a geek's.
Bill Gates discovered that in the late 1970s.
Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemainD ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
Just a note to ask you to be a little more careful with tags such as this. The subject misses being a living person by nearly 900 years. Also Tignar should remain as a red link to encourage the creation of an article, as all settlements of any size are considered suitable subjects for Wikipedia articles - see WP:Red link and WP:OUTCOMES#Places. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Although the user wrote as if he was reverting another user,
this was a revert of a Bot that was checking for grammar which is typically acceptable to revert by users who disagree with them, so I doesn't seem to qualify as being edit warring.
Please disregard, I am operating under little sleep.
--
AerobicFox (
talk)
07:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, you retype their username as Novice instead of Novus; this could probably be seen as an attack by them, and even more used as ammo. Was this a typo? Just letting you know if it was, and for the implications. If I'm wrong, and Novus is actually just the same word in another language, than feel free to disregard this message, and sorry for any wasted time.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 21:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't faux threaten me. I am not engaged in an edit war, I reverted vandalism to the articles page. Before that I had no dealings with the user. The edit has already been discussed in length on the talk page and even ignoring that the edits by that user conflict with Wikipedias rules and policies, the reasons for my reversion of his vandalism have been already discussed in length and detail on the talk page. He was already notified twice about this before his last vandalism and he so far has refused to discuss the reasons for his edits on the talk page. In fact going so far as to hide the discussion from the talk pages view (in a violation of Wikipedias rules) AFTER his vandalism.
If you have a problem with this then either you discuss the reason for the reverts of an article that complies with Wikipedia or you tell that user to discuss it before reverting. It has already been dealt with and any further reverts after this will be taken as admission of vandalism if no changes are dicussed on the talk page. Learn the rules. 203.59.114.15 ( talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Season's Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Civility Award | ||
I frequently see you at pages dealing with controversies about religion, where there is no shortage of drama, and you are always a voice of calm and reason. Keep up the good work—it's needed and appreciated! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
Since you're a regular, I'll not template you. But I will ask you to (1) respect the consensus process and not add disputed information without consensus; and (2) review WP:EW and WP:3RR. Thank you. Cresix ( talk) 02:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Jess,
I removed a biased statement that the ID argument was psudoscientific. I'm not stating that it's a scentific argument, however to call it psudoscientific is to also color it with the brush of the anti-ID crowd. Is calling it an argument biased - and if so how?
Calling it an argument made by Bebe is fair. He is a PHD scientist so it is insulting to call his argument psudo-scientific.
Similarly, statements about arguments from increduility are being misappplied. This is not a matter of God, but of science. If I saw a car built with thousands of interconnecting parts on the side of the road, and someone told me it just happened to assemble itself that way, because of a quirk of nature, and it just happens to work, I would be increduilous (sp). But that is supposed to be the stronger side of the argument? And implying that there is some intent for it to work is the weaker side?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.66.20.96 (
talk)
02:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Jess didn't read your reply first (wasn't coming up) but before you change it back, please consider that
1) the "reliable sources" are the so-called same people who oppose the argument! How can that be considered neutral?
2) calling it by a pejorative (which wikipedia does) colours the understanding of the rest of the article, and may disuade people from reading it
3) New science takes time. It shouldn't be discounted just becuause it isn't understood yet. Both sides should be given a chance. Calling it an argument alone does not make it right, but calling it pseudo ... does make it sound wrong.
I'm getting up to speed on the wikipedia procedures. I'll try to do it better next time.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 ( talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I will follow up on your suggestions Jess. Much appreciated. Regarding scientific assumptions that are clearly disproven through indisuputable evidence, there is no psudo-science involved. It is just plain wrong. That is not the situation here. Very little is proven on either side. Much may be accepted, but little is proven.
I'll learn more about the issue and discuss it on the talk page. Still I've read that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule".
In the meantime, I do feel that doubly characterising the argument as psudo-science is un-necessary and redundant and therefore leans towards bias. The term psudo-science is not a scientic term according to its article and has questionable if any positive value. It belongs in the second characterization which describes the view of the opponents. This better reflects the spirt of neutrality of Wikipedia, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 ( talk) 15:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought you deserved a little more explanation about this. [2] During the Climate Change arbcom case and its aftermath editors were taken to task and in some cases blocked for altering others' talk page comments. I appreciate what you were trying to do there, but given the special circumstances surrounding this topic area think it best to observe a strict policy of never altering comments made by others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Insults and baiting aren't exactly the same as personal attacks though, and are more like being incivil.
Consider the list of things considered to be rude at
WP:CIVILITY:
WP:PA typically considers there needs to be something explicit personal about the attack such as "You are an XXX(republican, secularist, woman) therefore *insult*", and not just uncivil, but relatively impersonal insults that are not based off of your personal characteristics:
It can be a grey area, so in general I would avoid removing the comments of others unless they are highly offensive, spam, or obvious trolling, as removing an uncivil comment by another editor will likely just generate more negative feelings. If problems persist then you should follow the usual procedures of warning, and then going to ANI after awhile, and just avoid removing text unless it's very offensive.-- AerobicFox ( talk) 07:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:V any statement likely to be challenged needs a reference. As soon as those references in Gold Standard were aligned properly I accepted the end result. Unsourced claims are not allowed in Wikipedia.-- Novus Orator 05:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You said " In more than one case, you removed references.". You're mistaken. I've just removed one reference and that was because it was tagged as broken links since October 2009. Please, consider reverting your revert. Thanks, -- Damiens.rf 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Jess
talk|
edits
20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Jess. Dave has some page ownership issues at the ID page; please don't enable him. it's acceptable to hat disruptive conversations, marginally, but this conversation is not disruptive, and I am a bit pissed off at the reception I'm getting so you can trust me when I say I'll get administrators to intervene if this keeps up. You can let that thread alone and not respond to it if you so desire, and I'll likely do the same (since the conversation is moving on), but don't push me on this point. -- Ludwigs2 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I know it probably doesn't seem like it from what you've seen of me, but I am (generally speaking) far more aware of my communication style than most people. Sometimes I get honestly pissed off and vent, yes, but usually if you see me displaying an identifiable attitude it's because I'm doing something intentional to change the editing atmosphere on the page. It doesn't always work (and the ID article is one frigging tough nut to crack, let me tell you), but it works more often than you'd think. I'm not too concerned about my public reputation there; everything I've done simply serves to reaffirm the opinion that people like Dave and hrafn already had of me. Trust me, they would be saying exactly the same things if I were sweet as ice cream and pure as the driven snow.
Don't know if that will make you think worse of me or better of me, but there it is. -- Ludwigs2 23:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 08:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess, I am a new editor, and working on the acupuncture page. I find the existing editors a little difficult to talk to. I am trying to navigate through this but, I have been finding several sources misused in the article, and when I bring it up on the page they ignore me or any editor who is not anti-acupuncture, revert changes etc. I'm not just talking about the moxibustion topic. I just don't know how to address these issues and the talk page turn into huge meandering sections where nothing gets resolved. I am also having a hard time getting a hang of all the wiki rules since it seems hard to track down all the pages with the appropriate information.. thanks in advance for any assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soll22 ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
Regarding this edit, I would prefer the previous version. WP:FURTHER suggests the further reading section not duplicate books used as a reference. In my experience, when you've got multiple citations to different pages of a book (or many books, as in this case) the most logical cascade is footnotes then references, with a separate further reading section. Clicking on the footnote takes you to the appropriate note, then clicking on the within-footnote bluelink takes you to the actual reference. Putting the references in the further reading section muddles the two. What do you think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHPIDS and tell me what else need to enhance it and how to add logo.
adopt me for wiki articles if possible
-- Aswanii ( talk) 06:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall making any test changes or experimenting in any way. The changes I made were meant to fix the article. But since wikipedia is now a sounding board of how christians should receive homosexuality I'll not bother reverting it back and I will tell the my church the error of their ways. 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you have anything further to say about me, please use my talk page. Any more personal commentary about me in article talk space and I will take you to ANI. enough. -- Ludwigs2 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you just undid the same vandal's work at acupunture as has been going on with the same editor at TCM. There are a bunch of names doing the same kind of vandalism. At first I thought they were different people, but the deletion of the same content edits is being done, anonymously and with editor names that have only vandalism in their contribs. What should be done in such cases? PPdd ( talk) 05:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't had time to read how to use the tags. The vandalism has sprung up suddenly and has been fast and furious. The advert by User:71.131.180.27 here [3] and here [4] was rapidly followed by a series of less than 3RR edits by new-single-edit-editors, all similar in focus. Deletion of RS content Acupuncture images, flying squirrel feces, human placenta, ass hide glue pellet, and snake oil image and content: By User:Mubong here [5] and here [6]. By User: Sschram deleting eating “raw” flying squirrel feces here [7]. By User: Meirish here [8]. By User: 71.34.98.149 here [9]. By User: Huangqi01 here [10]. By User: Petalumana here [11], here [12]. By User: Brendan.mattson here [13], here [14], here [15], and here [16]. By User: 76.102.5.245 here [17], and here [18], and here [19]. By 76.178.243.228 here [20]. By Tgarran here [21]. PPdd ( talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I put a note on the talk page, which already had a vandalism warning, then I put a 3RR warning, and then there were two more deletions here [22], and here [23]
Although “these” are new editor(s), they appear to have no interest in improving Wikipedia except to censor images of professional women from they describe in edit summaries as “alluring” so “should be replaced by an image of someone in a lab coat”. Despite repeated warnings, and 3RR warnings, they continue. PPdd ( talk) 04:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess. I noticed you deleted the book "Building PHP Applications with Symfony, CakePHP, and Zend Framework" from bibliographies of relative frameworks. You said something about Lithium and advertising. Note that this book has about 20 pages appendix about Lithium and this is (one of the) the first book references of it. Even if you disagree with that entry (what can be understood), why the hell did you delete the all the other bibliographies?! The book IS ABOUT Symfony, CakePHP and Zend Framework. And http://phpframeworks.org is the official website for it, the one providing the source code for examples. I often heard about Wiki editors being overzealous in deleting content, but I hoped not to experience it. Sincerely, 89.78.154.213 ( talk) 00:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Bartosz Porębski
Hi I would like to bring your attention to the troll editing occurring on the "Jinn" article page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn).
98.192.200.200 has been continuously incorporating false information in this thread.
He or she keeps inserting the passage: "They have the ability to change their shape, and even possess living beings [1]" into the article which is patently false. Firstly the source Al-Mu’minun: 97-98 is not a direct Quranic reference at all. A Google search of this reference leads to this website: http://www.islamawareness.net/Jinn/fatwa_secrets.html. In that site the reference (falsely sourced as from the Quran) states that "“And say: My Lord! I seek refuge in Thee from suggestions of the evil ones. And I seek refuge in Thee, my Lord, lest they be present with me.” (Al-Mu’minun: 97-98)". This source does not support the statement that is being falsely incorporated in the article
It has been brought to my attention that these edits are a result of a "trolling" attempt on the "Gamefaqs" forum http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/58453211.
Please take action as you see fit to maintain the integrity of this article
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayne1850 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
>Thank you for the reply. In reference to the trolling assertion I would like to note that the first change in the article occured directly at 18:14, 21 March 2011 which coincides with its immediate use in post number 42 by user "Shado" at 18:27:25 AM 3/21/2011. Note that after the following edit user Giacomo Hawkins (on both wikipedia and gamefaqs) requested a citation which was hastily and incorrectly provided. Also note post #51 from user Shado: "Let's assume for a second, that it was me who altered it. Even though that ISP is from a place I don't live at, let's pretend it is. And let's also assume that Jinn possession is a load of crap, even from the Muslim perspective (which I have already proven to be false). Wouldn't that imply that god_of_toast was wrong about Wikipedia ensuring crap doesn't filter through on important topics? Just another reason why I think him linking to Wikipedia was a dumb move". In this arguement Shado was seen criticising wikipedia in post #17 before utilising it as a source meer minutes after the article was editted by an unknown user at post #42. A hastily selected source was added after Giacomo Hawkins post on Gamefaqs @ post # 44. Before Shado poses a hypothetical stating that if this information is wrong then wikipedia is "dumb" source to use (#51). Very unusual and suspect dont you think? Secondly I agree that other-viewpoints and perspectices would be a boon to this article however the passage and source provided is not trying to achieve that. Firstly the citation provided is a reference to a Quranic verse that simply does not exist. There is no verse Al-Mu’minun: 97-98 in the Quran. There is a Surat Al-Mu'minūn where verse 023:97 and 023:98 state that "And say, "My Lord, I seek refuge in You from the incitements of the devils, And I seek refuge in You, my Lord , lest they be present with me" (Sahih International Quran - can be seen @ http://quran.com/023/97-103. As you can see this does not in any way reference or support in any way the comment being eddited into the wikipedia article that "They have the ability to change their shape, and even possess living beings". As you can see this edit by an anonymous user is purely vandalism. I would ask that you lock this thread in its original form (i.e. before the edit by the anonymous user) until he or she can provide a reputable source to back up their assertion Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayne1850 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Figured I should explain--if you look at Template:cquote, you can see that it is designed for pull quotes. Pull quotes, by definition, must be a quotation of something else that is in the article (not for quoting things from outside WP) stylistically; furthermore, the purpose is to catch the reader's eye or pull them in, something that we don't do in encyclopedia articles. MOS:QUOTE specifies that we should use Template:blockquote for long citations. I think that you were right to move over the detailed information, however; I thought the general point might be enough, but I think your way is clearer. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you recently downgraded The eclipse of Darwinism from class B to class C. I don't really object to the downgrade per se, but I would like you to explain what about the article did not meet the class B criteria as that would help me improve the article. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made a series of edits that I hope address your concerns, and responded to your specific comments on the talk page. I believe the article is now much improved, and I was hoping you would now reconsider your downgrade, respond with more comments, or both. Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 02:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Side note, I responded to your and Bug discussion on ANI referecing AP's "facts" The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope you didn't mind that I reverted the stuff left behind by the IP vandal on your user page. I guess you had reported him just before I did. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest |
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
acupuncture. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ludwigs2 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Mann_jess. This notice is simply to remind you that acupuncture falls under the broad pseudoscience arbitration ruling to be found here, which places the page under more restrictive editing requirements. Your recent actions on that article and talk page may be subject to sanction or restriction under that ruling; in particular, you appear to have been failing to observe proper talk page procedures, may have engaged in tendentious editing, and may be supporting the misuse of sources to introduce misinformation into the article.
This is simply a notice, as well as a request that you take somewhat greater care with your actions on this article than you might in a more relaxed environment. You may delete it at your leisure. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Jess, let's take this silly point off article talk and stop going around in circles on it. let me summarize our difference of opinion, so that we can drop this and move on to more interesting issues
I would suggest you start taking a more nuanced approach (which will make things here much smoother) and avoid your current aggressive approach (which is just making things unpleasant for no good reason). That, however, is up to you. Now let's drop it and get back to discussing content. -- Ludwigs2 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Your insistence on including the proposal have been opposed by every single editor on the page, with the sole exception of a brand new ip. The above objections come from myself, Orangemarlin, LeadSongDog, Snowded, WLU and Noren. MathSci and Hans Adler additionally opposed inclusion prior to discussion. Your assertions are flatly incorrect. I also asked that you stop posting about this issue on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you respected that request. Please keep (collaborative) discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You were mentioned at WP:ANI#User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas. Dougweller ( talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Man Jess, Can you explain why the links you deleted didn't seem appropriate? If your reason/s are adequate, where do you suggest I put them? I will be happy to listen. By the way, this article used to have 5 external links to some of the same websites back in 2005. Wekn reven i susej eht ( talk) 08:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jess, it has just been a while since I have edited links, so I had to go back and change from standard html to wiki markup. FGitz Agoodking ( talk) 04:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Jess - You left a message on my talk page and said that if I wanted to respond I should respond from my talk page because you're monitoring it. However, I don't know how to respond to your message from my talk page. I've clicked around on it and looked at all the links but I don't see a way to respond back to you. Please let me know how to do so. Thanks. Rsay3 ( talk) 01:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I know you warned me about the strong resistance at Atheism:Talk. I now understand completely. I don't know how you guys put up with this for so long. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 22:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I would ask that you re-visit the article to see that your initial concerns have been addresses. The unsourced new article that you first nominated has now been expanded and sourced since that nomination. It is my thought that we do toss what can be easily fixed simply because the article was incomplete. You asked for sources that adressed the film drectly and in detail: Glasgow Herald addresses the film and its controversy directly and in detail, [26] as do articles in Yorkshire Post. [27] [28] [29] That the film has then made it into the enduring record is futher evidence of its notability. Perhaps better for the project and its readers that we continue to improve the article rather than toss it because an earlier version was flawed. Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you've come around, but just in case you have residual concerns, you might want to have a gander at wp:CALC. In short, arithmetic isn't wp:OR. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, I concluded discussions in general but particularly re the arsenic poisoning needed some help so have posted it here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Homeopathy_-_to_mention_a_summary_or_the_conclusion. I hope you see this in the positive light in which it was it was done. I'm instructed to notify you hence me posting here - it being the most efficient as far as iI understand. Cjwilky ( talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The new user you welcomed the other day, user talk:Kbothwell, had the misfortune to run into Hrafn on the UPI article page. I copied this from Hrafn's talk page:
Get it first, but first get it right.
[ WP:Complete bollocks from some twit who cannot wrap their mind around the fact that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", and that it is not "common sense" to expect somebody to take account of a source that is neither cited nor to hand, has been removed. This thread is closed, and the correspondent is invited to takes themselves elsewhere. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ]
There is no need for name calling, Mr. Hrafn. I understand the difference between slavish obedience to policies and the use of common sense. Apparently you failed to read the sections of the wiki policies on accuracy in quotations and the use of common sense, even at the expense of rules. I feel sorry for you that you are unable to engage in rational discussion and instead opt to declare victory and end the discussion by saying "I declare I'm right and that ends the discussion." Interesting also that you chose to edit out all the valid points I made in the discussion, apparently in a vain attempt to make you look better. And I suggest you recheck your source -- I contacted the Chicago Tribune, pointed out the error in their article and requested that they correct it.--Kbothwell (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Twit is singular and thus takes a singular pronoun. You should have said his mind rather than their mind. As an editor, you should know the difference. --Kbothwell (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you want to do anything about it. --
Kenatipo
speak!
05:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Uh I know this might seem a bit crazy coming from me, but your recent edits on the filioque article [30] are actually good. Could you maybe come back to the article and do some more cleaning up. The article is actually allot better now.. LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yo, what's the story with the humanism lead? I can't seem to find which ref says that humanism espouses reason ethics and justice (or which refs state them separately, as the case may be.) 79.97.174.231 ( talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to get a discussion going over at Militant atheism about the lede. I have (hopfully) sorted out the current sources and organized them here. I'm not sure what the most effective (i.e. avoiding the wall o' text, et al.) format would be for adding the data to the talk page. I'm still playing with it but would you mind having a look and giving some feedback? Btw..."Your insane man, it'll never work!" is acceptable feedback :) Thanks - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Militant atheism. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt ( talk • contribs)
Content dispute I'm not a part of |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It does not make sense to formulate warning if you are at the same time failing to address the presented arguments.-- Stephfo ( talk) 23:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please keep this on the article talk. I'm not involved in your content dispute, so I can't comment on the details. It's up to you to hash this out on the talk page. Just don't edit war again, and please don't post back here to argue. I am not involved, nor do I care to be. I'm sorry, but I have a lot on my plate ATM. All the best, —
Jess·
Δ
♥
02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
sorry but i'm not sure a reliable as such source can be found for something that is common knowledge such as this. what would be the proper procedure? i figured that since the wikipedia article links and cites it would be considered a good source as such. -- RebAvi ( talk) 10:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
Thanks for your advice. You may be right about the need for citations but I believe the normal policy is to tag this rather than simply delete the addition in its entirely. I personally feel that citations are not absolutely essential in this case, since the argument is simply based on the uncontrovertable plot sequence of the original texts. However, the key points are not my own so I will shortly restore the contribution with appropriate citations.
Please feel free to contact me about this if necessary.
Regards,
Sineaste -- Sineaste ( talk) 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That was actually me I edited my page from the public library. I did not feel like logging in, I was using my ZuneHD so it would have been time consuming. But I was planning to check if you could make your personal page only editable to autoconfirmed users or something.-- Nishauncom ( talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a bunch edits by an IP assuming vandalism but now I'm not sure. Could you take a look and revert me if I made a mistake. Slightsmile ( talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We need to work with him, he seems to be an expert on the subject who doesn't understand how we work. He could be an asset. He's responded on my talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jess, I thought that I was adding useful information to the "Genesis Creation Narrative" site. Anastasius of Sinai (Anastasius Sinaita) discusses the Genesis creation narrative extensively in 12 books in his Hexaemeron. His Hexaemeron also contains citations of many previous commentators on the creation narrative: from Philo to Basil the Great. Thus his Hexaemeron, in many ways, is a compendium of commentaries on the creation narrative by Fathers of the Church prior to 700. Most students and scholars do not realize this, because his Hexaemeron was not published in the original Greek and was not translated into a modern language until 2007. Anastasius himself, despite his enormous importance in the Middle Ages, is often not taught in universities, because critical editions of his works have only begun to be published. Thus I also added a site about his life and works in general.
If, however, these two links still seem gratuitous, I would be happy to remove them. I do not want to be contentious. I enjoy your work on Wikipedia too much! (I did not see, at first, who had removed the two links.)
So let me know what you would like.
Thanks for your patience,
Clementkuehn ( talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
[1] Dougweller ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous editor (the same one) reverted the edit back. I suspect this could be an ongoing issue. Your intervention is kindly requested. Obamafan70 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
He's a candidate, I think having him listed as a candidate makes perfect sense. If he weren't a candidate he wouldn't even have a wiki page, so I don't see the sense in trying to mask this fact. His opponent has a page very similar to what I had posted and I don't see you jumping in there to make revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAndrewClarkC123 ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:FMCCcampus.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 03:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FMCCcampus.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 07:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Efiiamagus/The_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument_(book)
Please feel free to edit and contribute to this. Efiiamagus ( talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
ip addresses are reused by many people
you should not attack someone who happened to get assigned the ip used by someone else to make an edit that you dont like
i never attacked anybody unless you consider an edit an attack because that was a change , perhaps that you disagree with , or perhaps cause you dont want your golden words changed by anybody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.103 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for uploading File:FMCCcampus.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
soapboxing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I posted on the article talk page already....
NO VALID REASON TO KEEP REVERTING IT, IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING SO BLATANTLY POV AND BIASED, IN THE LEAD.
And treating it like a forum, to do nothing but bash, and gripe, instead of presenting anything neutrally.
Saying "pseudoscience" especially right off the bat in the lead is anything but "neutral". I simply re-worded it with a more neutral unbiased and factual tone. With no pro or con either way.
That's why to many people, Wikipedia does not have the credibility that it should have. But how is my re-wording of the lead "biased"? JUST HOW SPECIFICALLY? All you did was assert it, but didn't explain or demonstrate it. I never worded as either pro or con. But simply NEUTRAL.
"Icons of Evolution is a creationist work by biologist Jonathan Wells that attempts to assert that often-cited evidences for Darwinian evolution theory are really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory. The book has been rejected by the majority in the scientific community." "vitriol"??
There's NO pro or con bias either way in my wording.
Leave your biased junk off of WP articles. It's in violation of the NUMBER ONE pillar of WP Policy. NEUTRALITY IN WORDING, with "NPOV" summarized in WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV
"Icons of Evolution is a pseudoscientific[1] book" not insulting, biased, vitriolic, neurotic, snarky? To many people it's NOT "pseudoscientific", but simply a book that challenges certain Darwinist talking points and supposed "proofs" of the theory.
Again, the first pillar of Wikipedia editing is NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW...
|
Ok I shortened the points here, (and on the talk page of the article), a lot more, if that makes you happy... because you don't like what's being said you call it ranting and soap-boxing, and blank the whole thing basically. try addressing the points instead of whining about the length or whatever.... Anyway, I made it a lot shorter... With less "soap-boxing" or whatever you saw it as.
The basic point is that my edits were good-faith AND SHOWED NO BIAS EITHER WAY. If a Young Earther came on and made the intro pro-Wells, I WOULD REMOVE THAT TOO. That was my basic point. Try addressing that specifically. Thank you. 68.237.215.48 ( talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your preservation of my comment on 91.110.10.177's flaky spelling. The amusing thing is that he didn't correct his own misspelling from which I was quoting! -- Jmc ( talk) 18:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mann jess. I'm not sure if you noticed it, but in a WP:SMS I noted that I already have taken the issue to talk--not article talk, though, because the issue isn't specific to this article, but rather guideline talk (at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section)#Simple descriptions), because the problem concerns the interpretation of a guideline. As for this article, the title might not be "particularly long", but I don't think that "short" and "long" correspond all that well to "simplicity" and "complexity". A long steel rod is no more complex than a short one, and a tall person isn't necessarily more sophisticated than a short one. The strongest similarity among the terms appears to be that both "short and long" and "simple and complex" are both highly subjective judgments. On MoS talk, though, I've suggested a more objective demarcation scheme. If you have any questions, concerns, or objections regarding my proposal, then I invite you to bring them up on MoS talk. Regards, Cosmic Latte ( talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Jess, noticed that, in your participation in what YOU idendtified as an edit war, you admonished me not to edit war. Do you get it? So, while you're edit waring, you say, in effect "Please don't edit war, but instead allow me to edit war and win",,, to which I have a simple reply. Starts with an "N".... ends with an "O"... NO. Get it? No! No, you don't have some authority that I don't have. No, you don't get to set the ejenda. No, you can't argue that I'm PA, and I'm not allowed to respond. NO. Get it? NO Steve kap ( talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware you had closed it. There was an edit conflict so I had to copy-paste and reinsert it. Also, thank you for not merely deleting my answer to Walter Görlitz. Rmcfanatic ( talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You reverted on global warming, asserting that you something appeared to be original research. You didn't assume good faith. Are you knowledgeable enough to KNOW it is original research? If not, why didn't you just use citation needed. If you had read the source for the original statement, you would know that the same source supports the new statement.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 19:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thought I should let you know that I just quoted you in this thread at ANI, with respect to user Gniniv who, after a three-day retirement, reappeared under wp:cleanstart as user Terra Novus, and whose signature reads "Novus Orator". Best, – OhioStandard ( talk) 08:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
While I am a qualified engineer and have programmed computers since the days of the Eliot 803, I don't do that now.
I am not interested in messing around with four tildes curly brackets and square brackets.
These days I communicate in English -- a high level language used in the Apollo article.
I found a reference to a YouTube reference that was dead.
You have reinstated the dead link.
What the goodness are you playing at??
If you want people to contribute don't expect them to learn a new language. I am not prepared to learn Wiki-gibberish; I speak English, French, German, Spanish and Italian. Not tildes and curly brackets.
Strongly suggest that you correct that link as it destroys your anti-conspiracy case. Indeed make the case for conspiracy. I see that someone says that the video is 'all over the Internet' -- Eyes glaze-over at that stage!!
Not that I care, I don't know either way, I was just trying to research.
Wiki has a dreadful reputation, you know for hobby-horses and single-issue soap-boxers.
Thanks for listening. Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemainD ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This system has to be the most user-unfriendly system since DOS died. If you'd like to reply to my last comment then kindly reply to me as I have no intention of spending the next hour finding out how to add you to my watchlist.
If the Wiki wants knowledgeable people to contribute to the Wiki then you must let them communicate in ordinary language.
A butcher might know a lot about meat but not be able or willing to mess about with odd symbols that might not even be on his keyboard but the butcher's opinion, on the subject of meat, is of far more use than a geek's.
Bill Gates discovered that in the late 1970s.
Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemainD ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
Just a note to ask you to be a little more careful with tags such as this. The subject misses being a living person by nearly 900 years. Also Tignar should remain as a red link to encourage the creation of an article, as all settlements of any size are considered suitable subjects for Wikipedia articles - see WP:Red link and WP:OUTCOMES#Places. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Although the user wrote as if he was reverting another user,
this was a revert of a Bot that was checking for grammar which is typically acceptable to revert by users who disagree with them, so I doesn't seem to qualify as being edit warring.
Please disregard, I am operating under little sleep.
--
AerobicFox (
talk)
07:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, you retype their username as Novice instead of Novus; this could probably be seen as an attack by them, and even more used as ammo. Was this a typo? Just letting you know if it was, and for the implications. If I'm wrong, and Novus is actually just the same word in another language, than feel free to disregard this message, and sorry for any wasted time.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 21:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't faux threaten me. I am not engaged in an edit war, I reverted vandalism to the articles page. Before that I had no dealings with the user. The edit has already been discussed in length on the talk page and even ignoring that the edits by that user conflict with Wikipedias rules and policies, the reasons for my reversion of his vandalism have been already discussed in length and detail on the talk page. He was already notified twice about this before his last vandalism and he so far has refused to discuss the reasons for his edits on the talk page. In fact going so far as to hide the discussion from the talk pages view (in a violation of Wikipedias rules) AFTER his vandalism.
If you have a problem with this then either you discuss the reason for the reverts of an article that complies with Wikipedia or you tell that user to discuss it before reverting. It has already been dealt with and any further reverts after this will be taken as admission of vandalism if no changes are dicussed on the talk page. Learn the rules. 203.59.114.15 ( talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Season's Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Civility Award | ||
I frequently see you at pages dealing with controversies about religion, where there is no shortage of drama, and you are always a voice of calm and reason. Keep up the good work—it's needed and appreciated! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
Since you're a regular, I'll not template you. But I will ask you to (1) respect the consensus process and not add disputed information without consensus; and (2) review WP:EW and WP:3RR. Thank you. Cresix ( talk) 02:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Jess,
I removed a biased statement that the ID argument was psudoscientific. I'm not stating that it's a scentific argument, however to call it psudoscientific is to also color it with the brush of the anti-ID crowd. Is calling it an argument biased - and if so how?
Calling it an argument made by Bebe is fair. He is a PHD scientist so it is insulting to call his argument psudo-scientific.
Similarly, statements about arguments from increduility are being misappplied. This is not a matter of God, but of science. If I saw a car built with thousands of interconnecting parts on the side of the road, and someone told me it just happened to assemble itself that way, because of a quirk of nature, and it just happens to work, I would be increduilous (sp). But that is supposed to be the stronger side of the argument? And implying that there is some intent for it to work is the weaker side?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.66.20.96 (
talk)
02:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Jess didn't read your reply first (wasn't coming up) but before you change it back, please consider that
1) the "reliable sources" are the so-called same people who oppose the argument! How can that be considered neutral?
2) calling it by a pejorative (which wikipedia does) colours the understanding of the rest of the article, and may disuade people from reading it
3) New science takes time. It shouldn't be discounted just becuause it isn't understood yet. Both sides should be given a chance. Calling it an argument alone does not make it right, but calling it pseudo ... does make it sound wrong.
I'm getting up to speed on the wikipedia procedures. I'll try to do it better next time.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 ( talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I will follow up on your suggestions Jess. Much appreciated. Regarding scientific assumptions that are clearly disproven through indisuputable evidence, there is no psudo-science involved. It is just plain wrong. That is not the situation here. Very little is proven on either side. Much may be accepted, but little is proven.
I'll learn more about the issue and discuss it on the talk page. Still I've read that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule".
In the meantime, I do feel that doubly characterising the argument as psudo-science is un-necessary and redundant and therefore leans towards bias. The term psudo-science is not a scientic term according to its article and has questionable if any positive value. It belongs in the second characterization which describes the view of the opponents. This better reflects the spirt of neutrality of Wikipedia, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 ( talk) 15:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought you deserved a little more explanation about this. [2] During the Climate Change arbcom case and its aftermath editors were taken to task and in some cases blocked for altering others' talk page comments. I appreciate what you were trying to do there, but given the special circumstances surrounding this topic area think it best to observe a strict policy of never altering comments made by others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Insults and baiting aren't exactly the same as personal attacks though, and are more like being incivil.
Consider the list of things considered to be rude at
WP:CIVILITY:
WP:PA typically considers there needs to be something explicit personal about the attack such as "You are an XXX(republican, secularist, woman) therefore *insult*", and not just uncivil, but relatively impersonal insults that are not based off of your personal characteristics:
It can be a grey area, so in general I would avoid removing the comments of others unless they are highly offensive, spam, or obvious trolling, as removing an uncivil comment by another editor will likely just generate more negative feelings. If problems persist then you should follow the usual procedures of warning, and then going to ANI after awhile, and just avoid removing text unless it's very offensive.-- AerobicFox ( talk) 07:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:V any statement likely to be challenged needs a reference. As soon as those references in Gold Standard were aligned properly I accepted the end result. Unsourced claims are not allowed in Wikipedia.-- Novus Orator 05:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You said " In more than one case, you removed references.". You're mistaken. I've just removed one reference and that was because it was tagged as broken links since October 2009. Please, consider reverting your revert. Thanks, -- Damiens.rf 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Jess
talk|
edits
20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Jess. Dave has some page ownership issues at the ID page; please don't enable him. it's acceptable to hat disruptive conversations, marginally, but this conversation is not disruptive, and I am a bit pissed off at the reception I'm getting so you can trust me when I say I'll get administrators to intervene if this keeps up. You can let that thread alone and not respond to it if you so desire, and I'll likely do the same (since the conversation is moving on), but don't push me on this point. -- Ludwigs2 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I know it probably doesn't seem like it from what you've seen of me, but I am (generally speaking) far more aware of my communication style than most people. Sometimes I get honestly pissed off and vent, yes, but usually if you see me displaying an identifiable attitude it's because I'm doing something intentional to change the editing atmosphere on the page. It doesn't always work (and the ID article is one frigging tough nut to crack, let me tell you), but it works more often than you'd think. I'm not too concerned about my public reputation there; everything I've done simply serves to reaffirm the opinion that people like Dave and hrafn already had of me. Trust me, they would be saying exactly the same things if I were sweet as ice cream and pure as the driven snow.
Don't know if that will make you think worse of me or better of me, but there it is. -- Ludwigs2 23:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 08:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess, I am a new editor, and working on the acupuncture page. I find the existing editors a little difficult to talk to. I am trying to navigate through this but, I have been finding several sources misused in the article, and when I bring it up on the page they ignore me or any editor who is not anti-acupuncture, revert changes etc. I'm not just talking about the moxibustion topic. I just don't know how to address these issues and the talk page turn into huge meandering sections where nothing gets resolved. I am also having a hard time getting a hang of all the wiki rules since it seems hard to track down all the pages with the appropriate information.. thanks in advance for any assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soll22 ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess,
Regarding this edit, I would prefer the previous version. WP:FURTHER suggests the further reading section not duplicate books used as a reference. In my experience, when you've got multiple citations to different pages of a book (or many books, as in this case) the most logical cascade is footnotes then references, with a separate further reading section. Clicking on the footnote takes you to the appropriate note, then clicking on the within-footnote bluelink takes you to the actual reference. Putting the references in the further reading section muddles the two. What do you think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHPIDS and tell me what else need to enhance it and how to add logo.
adopt me for wiki articles if possible
-- Aswanii ( talk) 06:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall making any test changes or experimenting in any way. The changes I made were meant to fix the article. But since wikipedia is now a sounding board of how christians should receive homosexuality I'll not bother reverting it back and I will tell the my church the error of their ways. 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you have anything further to say about me, please use my talk page. Any more personal commentary about me in article talk space and I will take you to ANI. enough. -- Ludwigs2 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you just undid the same vandal's work at acupunture as has been going on with the same editor at TCM. There are a bunch of names doing the same kind of vandalism. At first I thought they were different people, but the deletion of the same content edits is being done, anonymously and with editor names that have only vandalism in their contribs. What should be done in such cases? PPdd ( talk) 05:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't had time to read how to use the tags. The vandalism has sprung up suddenly and has been fast and furious. The advert by User:71.131.180.27 here [3] and here [4] was rapidly followed by a series of less than 3RR edits by new-single-edit-editors, all similar in focus. Deletion of RS content Acupuncture images, flying squirrel feces, human placenta, ass hide glue pellet, and snake oil image and content: By User:Mubong here [5] and here [6]. By User: Sschram deleting eating “raw” flying squirrel feces here [7]. By User: Meirish here [8]. By User: 71.34.98.149 here [9]. By User: Huangqi01 here [10]. By User: Petalumana here [11], here [12]. By User: Brendan.mattson here [13], here [14], here [15], and here [16]. By User: 76.102.5.245 here [17], and here [18], and here [19]. By 76.178.243.228 here [20]. By Tgarran here [21]. PPdd ( talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I put a note on the talk page, which already had a vandalism warning, then I put a 3RR warning, and then there were two more deletions here [22], and here [23]
Although “these” are new editor(s), they appear to have no interest in improving Wikipedia except to censor images of professional women from they describe in edit summaries as “alluring” so “should be replaced by an image of someone in a lab coat”. Despite repeated warnings, and 3RR warnings, they continue. PPdd ( talk) 04:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jess. I noticed you deleted the book "Building PHP Applications with Symfony, CakePHP, and Zend Framework" from bibliographies of relative frameworks. You said something about Lithium and advertising. Note that this book has about 20 pages appendix about Lithium and this is (one of the) the first book references of it. Even if you disagree with that entry (what can be understood), why the hell did you delete the all the other bibliographies?! The book IS ABOUT Symfony, CakePHP and Zend Framework. And http://phpframeworks.org is the official website for it, the one providing the source code for examples. I often heard about Wiki editors being overzealous in deleting content, but I hoped not to experience it. Sincerely, 89.78.154.213 ( talk) 00:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Bartosz Porębski
Hi I would like to bring your attention to the troll editing occurring on the "Jinn" article page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn).
98.192.200.200 has been continuously incorporating false information in this thread.
He or she keeps inserting the passage: "They have the ability to change their shape, and even possess living beings [1]" into the article which is patently false. Firstly the source Al-Mu’minun: 97-98 is not a direct Quranic reference at all. A Google search of this reference leads to this website: http://www.islamawareness.net/Jinn/fatwa_secrets.html. In that site the reference (falsely sourced as from the Quran) states that "“And say: My Lord! I seek refuge in Thee from suggestions of the evil ones. And I seek refuge in Thee, my Lord, lest they be present with me.” (Al-Mu’minun: 97-98)". This source does not support the statement that is being falsely incorporated in the article
It has been brought to my attention that these edits are a result of a "trolling" attempt on the "Gamefaqs" forum http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/58453211.
Please take action as you see fit to maintain the integrity of this article
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayne1850 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
>Thank you for the reply. In reference to the trolling assertion I would like to note that the first change in the article occured directly at 18:14, 21 March 2011 which coincides with its immediate use in post number 42 by user "Shado" at 18:27:25 AM 3/21/2011. Note that after the following edit user Giacomo Hawkins (on both wikipedia and gamefaqs) requested a citation which was hastily and incorrectly provided. Also note post #51 from user Shado: "Let's assume for a second, that it was me who altered it. Even though that ISP is from a place I don't live at, let's pretend it is. And let's also assume that Jinn possession is a load of crap, even from the Muslim perspective (which I have already proven to be false). Wouldn't that imply that god_of_toast was wrong about Wikipedia ensuring crap doesn't filter through on important topics? Just another reason why I think him linking to Wikipedia was a dumb move". In this arguement Shado was seen criticising wikipedia in post #17 before utilising it as a source meer minutes after the article was editted by an unknown user at post #42. A hastily selected source was added after Giacomo Hawkins post on Gamefaqs @ post # 44. Before Shado poses a hypothetical stating that if this information is wrong then wikipedia is "dumb" source to use (#51). Very unusual and suspect dont you think? Secondly I agree that other-viewpoints and perspectices would be a boon to this article however the passage and source provided is not trying to achieve that. Firstly the citation provided is a reference to a Quranic verse that simply does not exist. There is no verse Al-Mu’minun: 97-98 in the Quran. There is a Surat Al-Mu'minūn where verse 023:97 and 023:98 state that "And say, "My Lord, I seek refuge in You from the incitements of the devils, And I seek refuge in You, my Lord , lest they be present with me" (Sahih International Quran - can be seen @ http://quran.com/023/97-103. As you can see this does not in any way reference or support in any way the comment being eddited into the wikipedia article that "They have the ability to change their shape, and even possess living beings". As you can see this edit by an anonymous user is purely vandalism. I would ask that you lock this thread in its original form (i.e. before the edit by the anonymous user) until he or she can provide a reputable source to back up their assertion Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayne1850 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Figured I should explain--if you look at Template:cquote, you can see that it is designed for pull quotes. Pull quotes, by definition, must be a quotation of something else that is in the article (not for quoting things from outside WP) stylistically; furthermore, the purpose is to catch the reader's eye or pull them in, something that we don't do in encyclopedia articles. MOS:QUOTE specifies that we should use Template:blockquote for long citations. I think that you were right to move over the detailed information, however; I thought the general point might be enough, but I think your way is clearer. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you recently downgraded The eclipse of Darwinism from class B to class C. I don't really object to the downgrade per se, but I would like you to explain what about the article did not meet the class B criteria as that would help me improve the article. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made a series of edits that I hope address your concerns, and responded to your specific comments on the talk page. I believe the article is now much improved, and I was hoping you would now reconsider your downgrade, respond with more comments, or both. Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 02:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Side note, I responded to your and Bug discussion on ANI referecing AP's "facts" The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope you didn't mind that I reverted the stuff left behind by the IP vandal on your user page. I guess you had reported him just before I did. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest |
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
acupuncture. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ludwigs2 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Mann_jess. This notice is simply to remind you that acupuncture falls under the broad pseudoscience arbitration ruling to be found here, which places the page under more restrictive editing requirements. Your recent actions on that article and talk page may be subject to sanction or restriction under that ruling; in particular, you appear to have been failing to observe proper talk page procedures, may have engaged in tendentious editing, and may be supporting the misuse of sources to introduce misinformation into the article.
This is simply a notice, as well as a request that you take somewhat greater care with your actions on this article than you might in a more relaxed environment. You may delete it at your leisure. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Jess, let's take this silly point off article talk and stop going around in circles on it. let me summarize our difference of opinion, so that we can drop this and move on to more interesting issues
I would suggest you start taking a more nuanced approach (which will make things here much smoother) and avoid your current aggressive approach (which is just making things unpleasant for no good reason). That, however, is up to you. Now let's drop it and get back to discussing content. -- Ludwigs2 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Your insistence on including the proposal have been opposed by every single editor on the page, with the sole exception of a brand new ip. The above objections come from myself, Orangemarlin, LeadSongDog, Snowded, WLU and Noren. MathSci and Hans Adler additionally opposed inclusion prior to discussion. Your assertions are flatly incorrect. I also asked that you stop posting about this issue on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you respected that request. Please keep (collaborative) discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You were mentioned at WP:ANI#User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas. Dougweller ( talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Man Jess, Can you explain why the links you deleted didn't seem appropriate? If your reason/s are adequate, where do you suggest I put them? I will be happy to listen. By the way, this article used to have 5 external links to some of the same websites back in 2005. Wekn reven i susej eht ( talk) 08:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jess, it has just been a while since I have edited links, so I had to go back and change from standard html to wiki markup. FGitz Agoodking ( talk) 04:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Jess - You left a message on my talk page and said that if I wanted to respond I should respond from my talk page because you're monitoring it. However, I don't know how to respond to your message from my talk page. I've clicked around on it and looked at all the links but I don't see a way to respond back to you. Please let me know how to do so. Thanks. Rsay3 ( talk) 01:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I know you warned me about the strong resistance at Atheism:Talk. I now understand completely. I don't know how you guys put up with this for so long. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 22:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I would ask that you re-visit the article to see that your initial concerns have been addresses. The unsourced new article that you first nominated has now been expanded and sourced since that nomination. It is my thought that we do toss what can be easily fixed simply because the article was incomplete. You asked for sources that adressed the film drectly and in detail: Glasgow Herald addresses the film and its controversy directly and in detail, [26] as do articles in Yorkshire Post. [27] [28] [29] That the film has then made it into the enduring record is futher evidence of its notability. Perhaps better for the project and its readers that we continue to improve the article rather than toss it because an earlier version was flawed. Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you've come around, but just in case you have residual concerns, you might want to have a gander at wp:CALC. In short, arithmetic isn't wp:OR. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, I concluded discussions in general but particularly re the arsenic poisoning needed some help so have posted it here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Homeopathy_-_to_mention_a_summary_or_the_conclusion. I hope you see this in the positive light in which it was it was done. I'm instructed to notify you hence me posting here - it being the most efficient as far as iI understand. Cjwilky ( talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The new user you welcomed the other day, user talk:Kbothwell, had the misfortune to run into Hrafn on the UPI article page. I copied this from Hrafn's talk page:
Get it first, but first get it right.
[ WP:Complete bollocks from some twit who cannot wrap their mind around the fact that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", and that it is not "common sense" to expect somebody to take account of a source that is neither cited nor to hand, has been removed. This thread is closed, and the correspondent is invited to takes themselves elsewhere. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ]
There is no need for name calling, Mr. Hrafn. I understand the difference between slavish obedience to policies and the use of common sense. Apparently you failed to read the sections of the wiki policies on accuracy in quotations and the use of common sense, even at the expense of rules. I feel sorry for you that you are unable to engage in rational discussion and instead opt to declare victory and end the discussion by saying "I declare I'm right and that ends the discussion." Interesting also that you chose to edit out all the valid points I made in the discussion, apparently in a vain attempt to make you look better. And I suggest you recheck your source -- I contacted the Chicago Tribune, pointed out the error in their article and requested that they correct it.--Kbothwell (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Twit is singular and thus takes a singular pronoun. You should have said his mind rather than their mind. As an editor, you should know the difference. --Kbothwell (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you want to do anything about it. --
Kenatipo
speak!
05:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Uh I know this might seem a bit crazy coming from me, but your recent edits on the filioque article [30] are actually good. Could you maybe come back to the article and do some more cleaning up. The article is actually allot better now.. LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yo, what's the story with the humanism lead? I can't seem to find which ref says that humanism espouses reason ethics and justice (or which refs state them separately, as the case may be.) 79.97.174.231 ( talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to get a discussion going over at Militant atheism about the lede. I have (hopfully) sorted out the current sources and organized them here. I'm not sure what the most effective (i.e. avoiding the wall o' text, et al.) format would be for adding the data to the talk page. I'm still playing with it but would you mind having a look and giving some feedback? Btw..."Your insane man, it'll never work!" is acceptable feedback :) Thanks - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Militant atheism. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt ( talk • contribs)
Content dispute I'm not a part of |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It does not make sense to formulate warning if you are at the same time failing to address the presented arguments.-- Stephfo ( talk) 23:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please keep this on the article talk. I'm not involved in your content dispute, so I can't comment on the details. It's up to you to hash this out on the talk page. Just don't edit war again, and please don't post back here to argue. I am not involved, nor do I care to be. I'm sorry, but I have a lot on my plate ATM. All the best, —
Jess·
Δ
♥
02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |