User talk:Mann jess

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House Episode List

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of List of House (Season 6) episodes

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

Cyrstal balling; no substantive content.

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

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

igloo

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

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

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

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

hello

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

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

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

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

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

Recent revert

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Bree Olson

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

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

Talk section moved per your suggesion

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

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

Hello, and thanks!

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

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

Edit Warring?

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

Hi Mann jess,

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

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

Mann Jess,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query

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

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

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

Signature

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

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

How do I fix this?

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

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

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

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

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

~
~~
Jess ^talk _cs
Jess ^talk _cs 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice

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

Also, fix you user page. Pretending to be a software professional (programmer, ingenieer, which you are obviously not) you should avoid giving a huge list of languages you are proficient with. Such a snotnose boasting just disqualifies you in the eyes of those who are true professionals.