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]

are we now censors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, sorry for any offense taken or any grief caused. Peace, OK?Jim62sch^dissera! 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

signature

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

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

Jess

_talk
_edits

14:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom

Hi Mann jess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thx

(This is a friendly . . .)

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

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

William Lane Craig

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

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation

There are currently
2,754 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Bible

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

Here is your official invitation:

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Bible

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

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

Biology

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

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

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

Your signature

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

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

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

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

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

Wait what?

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

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

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

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

Revert on Cryptozoology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

ANI Notice

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

Bigfoot problem

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