User talk:Mann jess

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

A thank you note

As StevenJ81 has said, even when you are talking with someone you disagree with, you still are polite and respectful . Thank you for teaching me some of the basics of Wikipedia. The Sackinator (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sackinator. There's a lot of drama here (as you have probably gathered), and it's always nice to hear something positive from an editor I've worked with. If you need any more help or have other questions, you're always welcome on my talk. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Catholic abuse cases

Hi Mann jess I have proposed a merger of the article you created, Catholic abuse cases into a much more comprehensive article with which it has a high degree of overlap. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I've been on vacation, but I contributed to the talk page. I appreciate your input :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Tomorrowland (festival) Robert T. Pennock Miriam Lee Loyal Rue John Skorupan John D. Morris Wick railway station Harald Høffding Genetics and the Origin of Species City of Launceston Exclusivism Sénart Li Jin (Tang Dynasty) Kingston Beach, Tasmania Huntingfield, Tasmania The Creationists Werner Gitt Robert Merrihew Adams Thomas Chubb

Cleanup Theistic evolution Webcam blackmail Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit Merge Natural evil List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy Intelligent designer Add Sources Natural-law argument Existence of God History of creationism Wikify Mental health day Programming Web Services with Perl Dhulikhel Municipality Expand Ages of consent in North America Religion John Hinckley, Jr.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2012 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2012 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit waring ?

Thanks. I saw your note in the talk page you left about my "vandalism". I was wondering though : why did you say I was edit warring? - I tagged the article, I gave my reasons in the talk page, and someone reverted the tag writing it was vandalism. He or she never participated in the discussion I started; his or her single role was to revert the tag. Who is wrong here? I justified my edits, started a discussion and someone reverted twice without participating in the discussion just calling me a vandal then someone else ( you ) said I was edit warring. Keep in mind that no one else was editing at that time. You also suggested that the previous user should leave me a note for editing waring while s'he was actually was edit waring (with no participation and using inappropriate labels.) Can you explain why? Best,

--Motorola12 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Motorola. I'd be happy to answer. Basically, edit warring happens any time an editor repeatedly undoes the changes of other editors. This happens irrespective of discussion, or the content of the changes, or anything else. For instance, if John makes a change to an article, and Jill reverts that change, then John restores it and Jill reverts it again, they are both edit warring. Both of them have an obligation to go to the talk page and discuss the issue, and in the meantime, both editors should stop reverting each other while they talk it over. WP:BRD plays a part in edit warring a lot, and it's a generally good principle to follow; if a change you've made is reverted, then you should open discussion on the talk page first... you should not restore your change to the article before there is consensus on the talk page to do so. Many editors (myself included) give the reverting editor slightly more leeway when it comes to edit warring, because the onus is on the person originally changing the article to establish consensus for his change. There's also some leeway given to either editor in certain cases, such as violations of WP:BLP, or if one editor is being really combative, or if an editor has tried to collaborate on the talk page already, etc. It can sometimes be subjective, so it's best not to engage in it at all; edit warring is never looked upon favorably, for anyone involved. You should lean on the talk page heavily, and not revert while discussion is ongoing. Does that help explain things? You should skim WP:EW when you have a chance too, since there's a pretty good explanation there as well. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for taking the time to explain. there is no big deal but I would comprehend better your reasons if the other editor had written something meaningful in the talk page and did not use the term vandalism to describe my edits. But it seems that s/he was just "casting a vote" without having anything to say about the article and the subject which seems to be the case for many "participants" in the homeopathy article in wikipedia - it is generally cool to be anti-homeopathy without having the remotest idea what you are you talking about - and yo refuse to yourself the time to be informed responsibly. One must have the ability to explain in his own words why s/he supports or not a consensus - speaking of which looks very artificial: several editors have expressed their disagreements. Best regards--Motorola12 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I allowed to participate in the discussion homeopathy talk page and answer to your argument? or not? --Motorola12 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course! Why wouldn't you be? Just try to engage collaboratively and try to avoid repeating yourself. You're probably worried about the discretionary sanctions notice left on your talk page, right? A good rule of thumb is to avoid behaviors listed in WP:TE (in fact, keep far away from them), and if you find yourself at an impasse, then ask an uninvolved editor (and take their advice!), or seek dispute resolution. Does that make sense? As long as you follow that advice, you should be fine. The only other thing to note is that once you've seen consensus form on an issue, it's time to give that issue up and move on to something else. There's plenty of stuff to fix and do here. So much, in fact, that it's usually crazy to get caught up on one change.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I have asked 3 times if I can reply to to what you said in the homeopathy page but your last comment in my tal;k page was confusing to me. If I refer to your argument I could be accused for repeating myself ? I m assuming that I have your permission as admin to reply and I will do- If I misunderstood let me know please. --Motorola12 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need the permission of an admin. The three users you've been speaking with primarily are established users who've been around this block before. Incidentally, I think one user who's given you this advice is an admin, but that's not really relevant. You can always comment on an article talk page, unless you're explicitly sanctioned not to do so by the community (see WP:TBAN; that doesn't apply to you). Editors are not warning you to stay off the page. Editors are warning you to work collaboratively and not repeat the same points over and over again without listening. Just be sure not to do that, and you'll be fine.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

homeopathy edits

Jess, the reason i edited the page as i did is bc wikipedia IS completely controlled by the powers that be and they will not allow information that goes against them on their pages. e.g. i had an incredible healing experience with homeopathy after horrible experiences with western doctors. i wanted to help others, so i posted useful things about my experiences, always couching them with statements such as "anecdotal evidence suggests," or the like. i also included many factual statements such that it has been around in India for thousands of years. i backed everythign up with a study, or with factual evidence, or with history, or with my own personal experiences, and everything was always deleted. they broke their own rules and the moderator essentially vandalized his own page. that's why i wrote what i wrote. is this something that you support ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.135.228 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi 24.177.135.228. We have very specific content policies here, which determine how we analyze sources, how we weight them against each other, and consequently what content is appropriate to be placed in articles and how. Personal experience, for example, is not a source we can allow to influence our content in any way. Wikipedia is not like many other mediums, such as books, or blogs, or research, or journalism. Each has their own standard, and so do we. I'm not familiar with your work on the homeopathy article, but if you're having trouble getting content included when working with experienced editors, there is probably a reason based on those content policies we have to follow. We do have biases on wikipedia, most notably toward the scientific consensus. That's intentional. If you're looking to compare data and do your own research, then wikipedia isn't the right place to do so. You should look into setting up a website (or blog) of your own, or working on another wiki with different policies, or writing a paper for submission to a journal, or publishing a book of your own. In any case, regardless of how previous discussions have gone, it is never appropriate to put the type of content you just did into an article. Please don't do that. If you have a dispute, see WP:DR. I hope that helps.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Medievia

Hi. You wrote the following line: "it has been expanded substantially, and that it is now a 64-bit application.". I ran a search for "64-bit" in your source (http://www.stanford.edu/group/htgg/cgi-bin/drupal/sites/default/files2/lmzen_2003_1.pdf) and didn't find anything. This source appears to be invalid. However, if I'm wrong, please mention the page number so that the information is easier to find. Thank you.EternalFlare (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

When I discovered the article today, I just combined the information I found into one paragraph. All the bits that I combined were "sourced", but some of the sources weren't very good (for example linking to forum posts and the like), and I thew those out. That all happened today, so up until now, those statements were verifiable. If there are contentious statements which now need a source, then those parts should be {{cn}} tagged, and someone should try to one down. The pdf I provided goes over the history of the medievia issue in detail, including various responses that the owner has given to the mess, so it should verify many of his other claims, if not the 64-bit issue. If you have trouble finding it, let me know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atheist's Wager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GodWars

Hi Mann jess, I'd appreciate you taking another look at the GodWars article, due to a conflict of interest. In particular, the recently removed[1] "History of God Wars" link would have covered the needed citations and much of the deleted content as per WP:ABOUTSELF. KaVir (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi KaVir. I was actually away yesterday, but sure, I'll take a look.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been improved quite a bit yesterday, but a fresh set of eyes certainly can't hurt. KaVir (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Everything seems to be ok now. I made a few changes, but could only find minor adjustments. New sources would allow us to add new content, but I've had trouble finding too many. Your site might be good for that, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Just be careful about the language.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mann jess. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In the beginning ...

 Thank you very much!

You and I have disagreed on content and perspective on a couple of occasions now, but you are unfailingly polite and respectful, and you listen to (and respond to) the questions asked. I really appreciate that.

Just FWIW, I sometimes find myself betwixt and between, and that's not the easiest spot to be in. I'm not a Fundamentalist, Christian or Jew; just because I accept the authority of the Bible (as an Orthodox Jew) does not mean that I think everything in it is to be taken literally. (Support from many classical commentators for that.) Do keep that in mind when you read my comments (and I think you already do).

In parallel to the discussions here, I've recently had a brief colloquy around Hebrew calendar and my insisting on use of BCE/CE there instead of BC/AD. In that case, BCE/CE is certainly more religiously neutral, especially in a Judaism-related article, but my interlocutor is quoting WP:ERA against that perspective. That's not a request from me for assistance/intervention there, just an illustration of how different things in different parts of Wikipedia end up not working in entirely consistent directions.

I'm about to ask you another question over there, but wanted to say "thank you" first. [PS: No need to TB; I'm watching.] StevenJ81 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steven. Thank you for the kind message. I could of course say the same for you; it's been a pleasure disagreeing with you ;) I've been a bit tied up today and haven't really been to my normal wikipedia routine, but if you've asked a question on the talk page, I'll get to it as soon as I have the chance. Anyway, thanks again for the message; these are always encouraging, and provide extra incentive to collaborating better. Talk to you soon!   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm unwatching this one. I'm tired of it. Hans Adler was polite, no argument. But at the end of the day, the argument is about whether academic usage supersedes common usage. For titles, I'm kind of on the side of common use, but the answer is far from clear-cut, and will differ from article to article. Ultimately, all these names will exist with redirects anyway, so it's not as if they are disappearing from the planet.

I'm starting to get a sense that arguments over article titles are some of the biggest time sinks that exist here, and to the least productive end. For example, there's one going on somewhere around here as to whether US place articles should include the state in the article title. The amount of ink that's been spilled on that, so to speak, is ridiculous.

I'm thinking about writing an essay on it (probably not until after Passover). I'll show you in draft. I think the single biggest problem, when dealing with NPOV and other fair balance issues, is that with titles, there's just one shot, no second chance to balance. In body text, there is always an opportunity for different opinions or nuances. Here, there's not, so there is every incentive to keep arguing about it, and not much motivation or incentive to compromise. But everyone spending time on that should (if you will) spend that time editing articles.

And that's what I'm going to do—head back to my sandbox. See you around town next time. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The RM should not have been started so soon. This is a perennial discussion, and unlikely to forseeably end. Your decision to back out is probably the right one. Never get sucked into big discussions when it isn't fun, or you'll burn out. I learned that first on the Atheism page, where the content isn't even the issue... it's the ordering of the content... and man those discussions got long. There's another one on Star Trek into Darkness right now which is huge, debating whether "into" should be capitalized. My approach is !vote, explain, discuss, and then move on. If there's other stuff going on, or other articles in need of attention, that takes priority. I do this intermittently in-between work, though, so it's easier for me to not get entangled. FWIW, that discussion will end "no consensus" and the current title will stay. Anyway, good luck. It was nice meeting you, and I'm sure we'll bump into each other again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic mythology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Cryptozoologists"

I was lead to Karl Shuker by the picture on Cryptozoology, which I thought was rather odd to have someone singled out like that on there, mainly I wanted to check the copyright on it since it appeared to be a studio image, in which I've put in a request at Commons to have the OTRS ticket reviewed to see if it includes the release from the studio (Image copyright is sorta one of the things I'm always looking out for, lol.). Anyway, his page seemed rather, strongly pro cryptozoology, which is pretty much bunk science. So I put some tags on the article since it's sourcing is very poor and one-sided, and commented on the talk page. Lo and behold, Mr. Shuker himself lords over the article and chimed in to state his opinion on my comment about it being a doggy science and needing some other views on it. I'm asking your help since you edit on Cryptozoology, to review some of these "zoologists" pages to review them for, (a) WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc.. and (c) if they even meet WP:N which I'm not sure based on the sourcing that Karl does. Here's a list mr Shuker provided of other cryptozoologists that didn't have any criticism of their work/views on their page. Loren Coleman, Jonathan Downes, Roy Mackal, Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist), and Bernard Heuvelmans, along with Karl's page. The way he responded to my comment, and the clear WP:COI of his edits to the page, makes me want to make it a personal mission to address the WP:NPOV violations on his page. First I think we'll try a round at WP:DR since his WP:N is highly suspect. — raekyt 02:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Raeky. Thanks for the note. That does, indeed, sound important to look into. I've been pretty tied up in the last 2 days with Vday and work (as you can probably tell from my lack of contribs), but I'll try to look into it as soon as I have the chance. I'm glad you noticed the problem!   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY POSTS IN TALK SESSION

I do try to improve the article, by linking to videos where the people the propagandist using as source in the moon hoax article - gets caught as proven liars. I dont care if they dont wanna watch the videos, this dont give you the right to censor my posts! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. The talk pages are for discussing specific changes to the article, backed up by reliable sources. You started 3 sections in 3 days, all of which revolve around debating the article subject. You've also made it a habit to insult other editors in the process. Please stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont care what you saying, because i do infact improve the article by showing that the ppl the propagandists are using as a source in the article is nothing else than proven liars, how many times must i repeat this fact? never close my topics again, for every time you do so i will open it again. Dictatorship is the wrong way! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring will get you blocked. You need to work collaboratively with other editors on the site.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

tell someone who cares? i dont tolerate threats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Kingston High School, Hull

Hi, not sure what was going on here but we appear to have been both trying to fix up this one at the same time. The page was at the correct title before it was moved as UK schools use comma as the delimiter and not brackets. I have restore it to the comma version after a few attempts. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I caught that. I had hoped to find consistency within Kingston High School (where hull is the only one with a comma), but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time discussing naming conventions and commas vs parens, so whatever it is now is fine. Thanks for correcting the mixed up move, in any case.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

baptism

Hey, I don't appreciate the pedantry. I gave the source (Luther's Small Catechism), any idiot can look up what it says in that small book in the section on baptism and see I gave a VERBATIM quote. If you wanted a citation added, why not add it yourself Mr Wiki-expert, instead of deleting FACTS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.93.55 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this edit. No source was provided in that edit; you added new text without a new reference. What source says that Martin Luther "clearly" held to Baptismal regeneration. In addition, there are issues with your wording which would need to be addressed before we added information like that. We can't end a well sourced paragraph with text like "However.... Clearly..." in wikipedia's voice. The next step is to take your concerns about the paragraph to the article talk page, which you can find at the top left of the article. I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you further there. Please don't edit war. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong

Im not "Vandalizing", I'm simply adding a much needed spice to this lowlife, already untreatable realm of binary numbers we call Wikipedia. Who put you in charge? Oh my mistake, NOBODY. The internet is a place to roam free for all without restriction of addition and speech. Chubylord (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This message came after I reported him to ARV. He got blocked immediately after. I figured it wasn't worth responding to.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of shit i got blocked when i tried to improve the moon hoax article which contains 90% personaly opinions and misleading bullshit, besides that many of my posts in the talk session(!) is censored and the article itself is protected by admins (edit = ban) 91.145.38.53 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You're in danger of being blocked now because you are not adhering to WP:AGF and WP:NOTFORUM. It has nothing to do with your ideas, or censorship, or some administrative cabal. There are perfectly collaborative ways of engaging editors with whom you disagree regarding article improvement, and you need to look at how other editors do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

you mean by misleading the viewers in both the talk session as well in the article? yes i maybe gonna do that too! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE news: February 2013

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What was that WP:T... rule?

You reverted me the other day on Agnosticism - no problem, I now think you were almost certainly right. It's possibly unimportant, but I was just wondering what was the ([[WP:T...) rule to which you referred when reverting me with the following explanatory text (or, if it was the Tutorial, which particular part did you have in mind?):

Reverted 1 edit by Tlhslobus (talk): Agnosticism is multiple things. We enumerate those based on their weight. However, a parenthetical list like this doesn't improve the article, IMO. ([[WP:T...) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Yea, edit summaries get cut off sometimes. They are limited to a certain number of characters, and I wrote mine too big, it would appear. That link was probably going to go to WP:TWINKLE (which is automatically filled in by twinkle whenever I use their tools to perform an undo). It wasn't intended to be a part of my summary. Anyway, I hope that's all clear now. Thanks for the message :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

np. :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for page on Rabindranath Tagore

Hi Jess, I have made an edit request for the page on Rabindranath Tagore at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore#Translated. The edit request is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rabindranath_Tagore#Tagore.27s_first_work_in_prose_translated_into_English_and_now_available_for_free_should_be_added_to_list_of_translations_with_hyperlink Please take a look at my request and let me know your decision. Webmaestro365 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)