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]

Charles Darwin establishing evolution?

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

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

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

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

Jess,

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

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

Jess

_talk
_edits

13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Jess

_talk
_edits

21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Flood legends

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

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

Jess

_talk
_edits

12:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Trusty Helpdesk

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you know this answer. Thanks in advance.

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

Atheism

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

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

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

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

Jess

_talk
_edits

15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bleiburg

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

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

Jess

_talk
_edits

02:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory.