User talk:Mann jess

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone! Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mann jess,

On Talk:Macrobiotic diet, user Ds13 said “Cheers” to me for removing Category:Pseudoscience. Apparently he/she supports removing said category, an edit which you reverted.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... no they didn't. You placed your comment right in the middle of their discussion, which took place over 8 years ago. [1]. You managed to break up their comment in the process, too... not that it matters all that much, since the user has been inactive for 2 years.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone! Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

Why are you changing psychokinesis. Psychokinesis is NOT telekinesis. Telekinesis is a TYPE of psychokinesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigs1111 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what question you're asking. In regards to this edit, your addition messed up the entire page, making sections of the lead bold and changing the first sentence into a garbled mess. That's ok; this sort of thing happens, but we have to undo changes like that to make sure our pages are legible.

As for the substance of your edit: many sources use telekenesis and psychokinesis interchangeably. Some others discuss telekenesis as a subset of psychokinesis, and we discuss that in the article. See the subsets of psychokinesis subsection. If you have any other questions, feel free to drop by the article talk page. You can find a link to it at the top left corner of the article. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey man is telekinesis and psychokinesis really the samePigs1111 (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. When you're responding to a comment, try to put it at the very bottom of the section you're responding to. So, to respond to this comment I'm making right now, put your reply right below it. Does that make sense?

As I mentioned above, telekenesis and psychokinesis are said to be the same thing by some of our sources. Other sources say telekinesis is a type of psychokinesis. On wikipedia, we just report what our sources say... we don't make decisions about the subject on our own. So, we report that the words are used interchangeably sometimes, and also report that one is a subset of the other in some cases. That's the best we can do with the sources we have. Does that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha so did you have it ment for interchangeably because I can add sources. Pigs1111 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources are usually helpful, yes. Take a look at what I wrote on the article talk page, and we can move the discussion there. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I put a source on my wal. Pigs1111 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you erasing sourced & valid content?

MJ,

I can't help but notice you have received previous complaints from other contributors whose content you erase and change. I have added relevant material directly quoting the Bible, citing original Greek, citing several English translations, to the New Testament section of an article called "The Bible & Slavery". You have reverted my edit twice and a third revert will automatically block you.

Rather than engaging in an editing war, would you like to explain what your contention is, besides personal disagreement, and substantiate your editing with New Testament references? Are you a New Testament scholar or Bible expert? I will revert your edit again. Below is my contribution for your reference:

The New Testament never uses the Greek word “sklabos,” the equivalent of the English “slave,” because it had not yet been coined by the time the Bible had been completed.[40] Instead the New Testament uses the word "doulon" to refer to a hired servant or employee, as distinguished from a boss or employer. This distinction is consistent wherever the New Testament lists two economic classes: slave or free.[41]

The popular assumption that New Testament slaves had the same status as European colonial slaves is a linguistic error and a historical error.[42] English translations of the Bible use the words "servant" and "slave" interchangeably. The Gospel shows such a servant was highly valued and in today's language would be better called an "employee". Compare three English translations of the Gospel of Luke chapter 7 verse 2:

   King James Version “And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.”
   The New English Translation “A centurion there had a slave who was highly regarded, but who was sick and at the point of death.”
   The New Living Translation “At that time the highly valued slave of a Roman officer was sick and near death.”

The attitude of the employer and Jesus Christ towards this servant contradicts the assumption that he had the same status or experienced the same treatment commonly associated with racial or colonial slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCardleDavis (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi McCardle. Welcome to wikipedia. I've been editing wikipedia for many years, and I'd be happy to point you to a few of our policies which address the content you'd like to add. Most importantly, the bible is what's called a primary source, which means that it can be used to quote itself, but not a whole lot more. Interpretation from a primary source is what's called original research - something all editors must strive to avoid. We very strongly prefer secondary sources on wikipedia for that reason. I'd be happy to discuss the addition with you at the article's talk page (Talk:Christianity and slavery). If you know of secondary sources which address this topic, why don't you bring them there and we can figure out how best to incorporate them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

MJ, By what you're saying the only thing that should have been edited out is "original research". Why then did you erase PRIMARY SOURCES (3 Bible translations) and SECONDARY SOURCES (a Christian author citing Greek original word for slave is not the emotive and colonial "sklabos")? There's a point where editing becomes policing of thought and outright censorship of viewpoints you don't want others to read. Are you not violating Wikipedia policy by erasing primary BIBLE QUOTATIONS and SECONDARY SOURCES? The one line I agree you could "disqualify" by your standard is the last sentence. Let me know what you still disagree. NeutralPower 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCardleDavis (talk • contribs)

Saying a source is primary is not a point in its favor. Quoting from WP:PRIMARY: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source." We cannot interpret parts of the bible ourselves without a secondary source, and that's what was being done.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of rude

To close the discussion especially when you are involved in a content dispute. I know you are kind. and you will reconsider. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I said there were two possible outcomes of your behavior, and you're edging towards #2. You can reject the advice of experienced editors all you want, but it will only result in you being ignored and then blocked. Have at it, I guess.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is asking questions requests for more opinions ----regarding the use of a reliable source is a reason for blocking someone ?. Why is this against the policy ? Just wondering. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly asking the same question, and ignoring the input you receive, is tendentious editing, which is grounds for blocking. You have received input from 10 separate editors by my count, and your response was to open a new section to ask the very same thing. That's disruptive. You won't be blocked now, but you've started on a path that will lead you there. That's unfortunate, but it's your call. Speaking of rudeness, ignoring 10 other people who are trying to help is "kind of rude". All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mobile

Hi i jst wanted to knw hw to edit by mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivam mahaseth (talk • contribs)

Hi. I've never edited on my phone, personally, so I'm probably not the one to ask. However, you can check out WP:MOBILE for some suggestions. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Had 3 sources, someone deleted them, anyway I'm retiring from this page till the holidays, I have a lot of science homework.Gudzwabofer (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the right decision for now. I get that this issue is important to you, but I'm not "your enemy"; my goal is to improve the article too. Come back when you have your school responsibilities out of the way (that's the priority!) and we can discuss it more. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

I would like to revert the article to the last stable version. Edits made by User:Swamiblue were disruptive and the user was blocked for edit warring for pushing in their controversial changes. An administrator asked me to wait to revert to a stable version. See my talk page. This would also undo the unverifiable and out of context changes introduced by User_talk:69.172.85.34 who is also adding controversial changes to the article and has just come out of a block. You can check the edit History of the article itself to confirm and the talk pages of these users. The current state of the article is not at the last stable version. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. I haven't really looked into any of the content, and have no stance on which version is better. My only involvement was to address the disruption by the ip. Thanks for letting me know, though! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism

Why does the article "Criticism of atheism" warrant defense of atheism whilst there is no material defending Islam on the "Criticism of Islam" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

I can't comment on other articles, only the ones I edit. However, as I explained on Talk:Criticism of atheism, the article is intended to cover all aspects of the topic. It is not List of criticisms of atheism (which, actually, would even still require some discussion of the criticisms). We don't write articles as "attacks" and "defense", we simply try to summarize the sources on the topic by including all significant viewpoints with respect to their prominence in the sourcing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

naturopathy

yep i wrote a sharp comment and then removed it. i get so sick of people not actually reading what other people write and responding to that. i have no idea what you thought you were responding to, much less who. sorry for swearing at you. i removed it because i regretted it. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I did, in fact, read your comment before replying. This stood out to me: "the heart of [naturopathy] is common sense mainstream medicine today...where naturopathy goes wrong from the mainstream perspective, is trying to treat serious conditions without medicine... our article is pretty heavily WEIGHTed on the latter [non mainstream med], and maybe not enough WEIGHT on the former [mainstream med]." I don't know you, or any other editor personally; I can only respond to what I read. I understood that blip to mean one can reasonably practice naturopathy in conjunction with mainstream med, and that we should consider adjusting the weight of the article to provide more emphasis on that perspective. Maybe that's not what you meant to say, but the meaning is very clear to me as a reader. Hence my reply: the "heart of naturopathy" is not just "common sense mainstream med", it is loads of other claims, and the perspective that it could be practiced a certain way should not influence how we assess due weight. I think you significantly misread my post, which was not an attack on you (in fact, I expected you would simply agree with me... my only aim was to clarify, so we didn't start down the wrong path). Anyway, we all make mistakes, and read too much into things sometimes. No worries. I appreciate you posting here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

you misinterpret what i wrote yet again here. bummer. thanks for accepting my apology, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, you may have meant something different. I'm not making an active effort to misunderstand you... I'm just reading what you wrote as best I can. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something obvious... I just can't see any other way to interpret your words. Sometimes it's tough to communicate certain ideas. Who knows. I don't think it really matters right now. If this ends up being important later, we can hash it out more.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Precognition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Price (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) 09:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Genesis creation page edit

Hi Jess, I have removed William Blake's art because it is insulting to those who believe in the God of creation as told in Genesis. Using Blake's art on this page would be like posting a Nazi original piece on a page about Jewish culture in Germany. A better piece of creation art would be one painted by a believer of the subject being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.158.73 (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the message. When there is disagreement over content on an article, the best place to go to discuss it is the article talk page. You can find a link to the article talk page by clicking the "Talk" button at the top left of any article. Before going there about this issue, I'd encourage you to read WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia does not censor content based on it being offensive or insulting to any group... we simply try to present the most accurate information we can given our sources. If you have any other questions, direct them to Talk:Genesis creation narrative, and I'm sure an experienced editor would be happy to help you out. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My Page Tom Sandow

Thank you Jess for communicating with me. My page is well listed by Google etc but if I tap in Tom Sandow on search it says 'not listed'. How do I become 'listed' on Wikipedia? If you could explain I would be lost grateful. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.13.144 (talk)

Hi there. Wikipedia has requirements for what we call "notability". You can read about them here. Basically, to be covered on wikipedia, a topic must be covered significantly by reliable sources. As an example, I'm not notable, so an article doesn't exist about me (despite being on tv and in newspapers several times, I don't meet our notability guidelines). If you think an article should be created about a subject that is notable, check out WP:Your first article. You'll have to create an account to create new articles, or you can submit an article to WP:AfC for someone else to create. If you are hoping to create an article about yourself, you may want to read WP:COI, and I would suggest asking another editor to create the article for you to avoid any conflict of interest. If you have any questions, feel free to ask an experienced editor, and check out the WP:Teahouse. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars for you!

		The Bio-star
		Thank You *Very Much* For Your Excellent Contributions To The "Abiogenesis" Article - Including Your Recent Help With The "Frequently Answered Questions" Section On The "Abiogenesis Talk Page" - Thanks Again For Your Contributions - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank You *Very Much* For Your Outstanding Contributions To The "Abiogenesis" Article - Including Your Recent Help With The "Frequently Answered Questions" Section On The "Abiogenesis Talk Page" - Thanks Again For Your Contributions - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Did I never thank you for this, @Drbogdan:? I thought I did! Oh well, I appreciate the kind words. Thanks for your contributions to Talk:Abiogenesis and the FAQ! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Hello Mann Jess,

I will leave more than one quote.

Many scientists DO NOT consider at least some elements of parapsychology, as a pseudoscience.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201401/is-there-scientific-taboo-against-parapsychology

I will dig out some really good quotes, and classically trained, western, establishment scientists to back this up.

Neo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.213.240 (talk • contribs)

Hi. The place to discuss sources is the article talk page. That being said, the source you've proposed here actually backs up our current wording, by detailing that the scientific community completely rejects parapsychology. The source goes on to argue a novel position, that this should change. I don't know, maybe it should, but it's not wikipedia's place to evoke change; it's our job to simply record how things are right now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Thanks for giving your name.

I have just read the comments by other people on this forum. They are extremely RUDE.

I will make a YouTube video about this and make it VIRAL.

Does Wikipedia (or some other "establishment") pay you some dough for guarding the gates?

This is going VIRAL...

Neo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.213.240 (talk • contribs)

Ok, have fun with that I guess. If you want to continue contributing here, you need to read WP:WEIGHT. We are required to present information in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, and on the topic of parapsychology, the preponderance of sources describe it in a certain way. Our coverage must reflect that. If you have sources indicating otherwise, you should propose them on the article's talk page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WLC

Your recent editing history at William Lane Craig shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiment article edits

Hi, please take a look at the Talk:Ganzfeld experiment, we can discuss the recent changes there. Larch150 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the edit is an improvement on several fronts, but I had a few concerns which I've tried to address. BTW, just as a point of reference, when you introduce new content and someone reverts it, the best course of action is to go to the talk page (like you did - awesome!), but also leave the new content out until it can be discussed. No big deal in this case, but it does help collaboration quite a bit. Anyway, I posted to the article talk page and made a few changes. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation – I am new to Wikipedia. I again posted to the talk page, and I am not sure if you get some kind of reminder (because I refrained from editing this time), so I am posting one here. Larch150 (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your excellent work on William Lane Craig making it more comprehensible. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I've appreciated your contributions there, too! I'm glad we've been able to make some progress! Keep up the good work!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Greetings! It seems to have been hectic at Acupuncture for the past few days, and I've tried to catch up with the discussion the best I can. Anyway, you reverted my edit[2] with an Edit Summary of "This directly contravenes consensus about this edit on the talk page.". I've read through the Talk Page, but I may have missed the consensus over this matter. Could you kindly point me out where this consensus has been reached? Thanks!

Best Regards, Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jayaguru, no worries. I'm going to be out most of the rest of the day, but briefly... this issue has been discussed in some depth in several sections, including here and here, as well as numerous more general discussions in the archives. Several editors have expressed significant concerns over that very specific edit, which are based on sound policy considerations (like WP:WEIGHT). I think reasonable editors could disagree about the state of consensus as either 1) there was consensus against the proposed addition, or 2) there was no consensus for the addition. I don't think a reasonable reading of the discussion would lead an editor to believe there was consensus for the addition, so adding it back in without first seeking consensus would be a mistake. I don't think it's unreasonable for you to fall into category #2, but if so, the right course of action is more discussion, not more controversial edits. You're right that the page has been a storm recently, which is unfortunate for everyone involved. More level-headed discussion is the best way to resolve that. Thanks for reaching out to me.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, no hurry. There's no WP:DEADLINE. But yeah, I agree. It has indeed been quite a storm there recently. Actually, I don't think I fall for categories 1) or 2), but for category 3): I am completely clueless here. I thought that I've followed the discussion pretty closely, but the discussion just keeps going on and on. Honestly, I think all the arguments have been said already and now we are just going though a grand recycle of those. In my ideal world, when everything has been already said, the discussion would just cease down naturally and the discussion could be easily concluded into a new consensus.

Anyway, for that reason I am not really quite sure where the consensus have been reached. The discussion is vast, so I hope you understand if I am asking you if you had some diffs more specific. Well, let me first have a look at the diffs you gave me, so ... there's no hurry really, especially now after the article got full protected now :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Innapropriate hatting of discussion

You recently hatted a discussion on the Talk:Acupuncture page. WP:Hat is very clear on this. "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." You are an involved party. I am therefore asking that you self revert this closure.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Meta discussion about the removal of talk page content expressly prohibited in our guidelines will not improve the encyclopedia. Seriously, take this to the appropriate venue. I've already pointed you there. That article talk page is suffering from severe bloat as it is.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you really been reduced to "ignore all rules"....well....I am speechless.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's funny... I wrote a few paragraphs with basic advice, because based on your editing pattern, I figured you were a new editor just learning the ropes. You've apparently been here since 2011 with over 11k edits. That new perspective is refreshing, because it means I have no compulsion to help you learn our policies - you know where they are already. Phew! So allow me to adjust... Your behavior is tendentious, and has the appearance of intentional disruption. Whether or not you intend to be disruptive is irrelevant; if you don't change your approach to editing, you will end up sanctioned. If you're not familiar with pseudoscience topics and our application of WP:FRINGE, you should become accustomed to it before wading in further. This topic is different than other areas, I assure you. Good luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Accupuncture

Please see discussion. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Indenting

Please be cautious when adjusting the indenting in a discussion. Your edit here at AN/I re-WP:THREADed my post and CambridgeBayWeather's post, placing them in such a way as to indicate (incorrectly) that I was replying to a post by DrChrissy, and that CBW was replying to my post. (This would be particularly strange, given that my comment was written, posted, and signed before DrChrissy's.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I was finding the conversation almost impossible to follow as written, with comments all over. A series of edit conflicts tends to do that. I figured I'd try to fix it so it was legible, and if anyone had an issue they'd revert me. Of course, feel free to move your comment wherever you feel is appropriate - sorry for the trouble!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I think I fixed it. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Stud!

Hey Stud,

Thanks for the message! I appreciate and respect all you do best believe! I did want to take the time now to let you know I feel this was a mistaken removal. Dan Quinn IS Maitreya! I know this shocks a lot of people but he has it on his stomach! Best believe in this! Thanks for listening and if you will please correct the mistake! Be well!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CA0:350F:919C:D40E:9C99 (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Global warming skepticism and climate change denial

Hello. A heads up in case you have innocently run into this particular WP buzz-saw: many of our colleagues have very strong opinions about the appropriate use of such terms and do not consider them interchangeable. Anthony Watts seems to be something of a ground zero for this dynamic. Hugh (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the notice! I appreciate it! While I haven't edited his article previously, I'm not new to the topic, so I do know what you mean. If it comes up again based on my edits, I have no problem discussing it, but using the most common terminology from the academic literature should be fine. Thanks again - hopefully I'll see you around in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the academic literature uses the terms interchangeably, sometimes within the same article. There are people who don't like that. In the interest of harmony perhaps the best solution is to put "skeptic" in scare quotes, thusly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Using the word "skeptic" throws up red flags for me right off the bat, because it is the word used in a PR campaign by "climate change skeptics". Given that, yes, I suppose there would be usage of "skeptic" out there on the net, since it's the label they've promoted. More significant to me is what impartial academic sources use to describe the topic, and my understanding has been that "climate change denial" is more common among those sources. I could be wrong, and I'll spend some time researching this in the next few days. Perhaps that will change my perspective. To be honest, I'm not really looking forward to wading into a new perennial discussion, but here we go... Thanks for the feedback!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

feel ya! Thanks for the refs. I have used most of them to improve the article. Any way you could share the Critical Policy Studies by Dieter Plehwe? It looks interesting. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, I never got back to you @HughD:! So sorry about that! I don't have the source on hand, but I'll see if I can get you a copy as soon as I get the chance. I'm doing some research on a related topic right now, and then I'll be heading to bed. Sorry for leaving you hanging a few days ago! If I seem to forget again, poke me :) Thanks for dropping me a note!   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary

It's been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page. This is clearly a WP:FRINGE POV. The vast overwhelming number of sources don't use this term. Per WP:WTW, we are not supposed to use this term unless widely used by reliable sources. And I hate to remind you that the burden of proof is on those wishing to restore contentious BLP content, not the other way around. Let's just follow the rules, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

1) The sources that matter are the most reliable, and most reflective of the academic consensus. That means a book by Mann is more significant than an article on the Guardian.

2) We have a large list of reliable sources which back up the wording proposal. I haven't seen any that contend Mann has not characterized the blog in this way. I also haven't seen any that contend it isn't what he characterizes it to be.

3) It is not a fringe POV that Watts Up With That? is a blog dedicated to climate change denial. Your usage of "climate change skepticism" means the same thing with different words. Your concern (as you've expressed it) is not that the content is fringe, but that the language we've used is inappropriate. That doesn't qualify as fringe.

4) Yes, this has been discussed to death, and if any consensus has resulted, it has been that the content is reliable and appropriate.

5) Your version of the article fails to reflect the mainstream scientific opinion regarding Watts' views, which is, itself, a WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT violation.

6) "Climate change denial" is not a word to watch. "Denier" is. Climate change denial is the common name used to describe a subject this blog is known to espouse. We are not saying "Anthony Watts is a denier". We are saying "Mann has characterised his blog as the most prominent website about climate change denial on the internet", an opinion which is widely held.

@A Quest For Knowledge: We've worked together positively in the past. I don't know what's led up to this disagreement, but I'm looking at it with a fresh perspective, and your approach is pushing it towards being intractable. Editors who would agree with you on this issue also by and large would support keeping out any mention of the scientific consensus about climate change, and representing Watts' opinion unchallenged. You are siding with those who would advocate for climate change denial, a fringe and pseudoscientific view, and that's a side I'm not familiar with you being on. If things continue in this direction, it looks like we'll be needing more formal means of dispute resolution. Right now, the article is a massive fringe and weight violation, and it can't stay that way.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe that you have misread the situation. The key issue here is what do reliable sources say about this topic? Or to put it another way, what do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? Nobody is disputing that Mann is reliable source (or at least I'm not). But we don't look as sources in isolation. We look at the totality of sources. And even when using Google Scholar, the vast, overwhelming majority of scholarly sources don't use the term "denier". There is no "large list of reliable sources which back up the wording proposal". There's just a small handful.

What I am saying is that the term, "denier" is a fringe term because the majority of sources don't use this term. We should follow the majority.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. I have no interest in disputing the scientific consensus about global warming. What I am taking an issue with is the use of the word "denier", that's all. Will you work with me to figure out a way to add a link to the Climate change denial without using the term "denial"? I believe that Dave had a reasonable solution. Can we pursue that further? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We're not discussing the word "denier". We're discussing the subject "climate change denial". Words aren't used in isolation, either. I'm fine with Dave's suggestion. I'm not fine with removing reliably sourced content, placing the article back in a state where it contravenes our policies. If you want to add Dave's suggestion, I'd be fine with that, but right now you're removing the single and only mention of the scientific consensus in the entire article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)0

There is already two WikiLinks to the Scientific opinion on climate change in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The only links we have are there because I added them today. Previous attempts to add them have all been reverted, including just today.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And despite the links I just added, there is still no prose indicating the scientific consensus. We were adding some, but it was reverted. The first link to scientific opinion on climate change is hidden in an uncontested fringe claim by Watts, in clear violation of WP:FRINGE   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions re climate change

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Apologies if this has already been received. I searched but failed to find it on talk history, system log, etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. Thanks. In fact, we should place this as a note in the edit window of the page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your excellent work on pages related to climate change denial. I had nearly given up hope before you arrived. jps (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the kind words! :) It looks like we're all having a positive impact on the topic. Thanks for the help! I've really appreciated your input on the talk page, in particular! That's really that hard part!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Long game, I think, will be our best bet. Seeing all the sleeper socks come out of the woodwork is really interesting. jps (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. These things die down over time. I requested full protection for a few days, which would help to encourage filling up the talk page instead of the article and prevent rampant violations of our policies in the meantime. It shouldn't be a big problem long-term. I'm just hoping we can avoid having to go to ani or ae, if we can.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Good work! One small point, did you mean to restore the NPOV tag? You might wish to undo that part of your edit. . . . . dave souza, talk 23:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. I really have no idea how that snuck in there. All fixed now. Thanks for letting me know!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit

It is generally poor form to edit anyone else's comment. I didn't change yours, but I did move it to a separate section, to avoid a thread argument within a section. If you think it is better to have a thread discussion within the section let's discuss.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why we need 4 subsections in order to list sources, nor why two separate comment sections would ever be required. But whatever you want to do...   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann lawsuit

If you look at the date of the Facebook posting, you will see that in fact the lawsuit seems to be inactive. We've discussed before that Mann's activist FB postings as a public figure are RSs for his own opinions and activities. YoPienso (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is. But a facebook post isn't a reliable source generally, and there's especially a problem when the idea of citing a post which says the suit is active for the claim it is inactive, based only on the date of the post. If it has been inactive for several years, we could surely find a proper RS to back it up. It's probably best to err on the side of avoiding misinformation rather than providing poorly sourced information, IMO. Thanks for dropping me the note about it!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in a spirit of collegiality you could let Tillman know your edit summary was too strong. That "source" says the exact opposite clearly implies the source says the suit is active, which you admit here is not so. I agree the fact is not currently essential to the BLP. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I may not have been clear enough. I meant to say: "I don't doubt the lawsuit is probably inactive, but I haven't seen a source indicating it is. The facebook post says the lawsuit is still active, so it doesn't back up the claim that it's inactive." Have I misread the facebook post? I'll take a look at it again if you got the opposite impression from it than I did; perhaps it's just my reading comprehension.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed this, but in fact my edit was pretty weak (absence of evidence /= EofA), so I wasnt sorry to be called on it.

Yopienso, thanks for the kind words. Someday we'll get the "Climate Warrior" stuff to stick! But, for a start, I'll try again on Mann's "State Penn" lawsuit..... RSN! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Surface stations

Thanks for the work you're doing on this, I suggest adding the following ref but don't know if you want it in a harv format. regards, dave souza, talk 18:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
ref name="Menne Williams Palecki 2010">Menne, Matthew J.; Williams, Claude N.; Palecki, Michael A. (2010). "On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record". J. Geophys. Res. 115 (D11). Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1029/2009jd013094. Retrieved 27 May 2015. [3]</ref date: 8 June 2010

Hi Dave. Thanks for the source! I added it to the article to back up the current content. Are you aware if this was an additional study beyond the ones we're already citing (i.e. NOAA)? If so, we may be able to add something about NOA's findings being supported by other research. I wasn't 100% sure on that, so I left out any new prose for right now, but let me know if you have thoughts on the matter. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann p. 72 "scientists of [NOAA]", refs 62, notes p. 284 refers to this paper. . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, from the leading historian on the topic:

• Weart, Spencer R. (February 2015). "The Modern Temperature Trend". The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved 31 May 2015. Regardless of what had happened in past centuries, the warming since the 19th century was now as certain a fact as anything in science. A few critics continued to seek confirmation of their denial of the warming in data on air temperatures from weather stations and satellites. In particular, former TV weatherman Anthony Watts established a popular website……

Worth reading on, he also cites Menne (2010). . . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that one is good as well. I tried to fit it into our existing coverage, which it seems to compliment nicely; Mann, etc, didn't go into detail about why the bias wouldn't impact results even if present, but Weart did. Thanks for tracking it down, it was an interesting read!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you've not quoted the point about denial of the warming in data, which ties in with Mann's assessment of the purpose of the project, and Powell p. 136 "deniers say that the U.S. historical temperature record is unreliable" etc.. In my view the section should start with that context.
I've added a quote to the WUWT talk page from Watts, Anthony (2009). Is the U.S. surface temperature record reliable? : how do we know global warming is a problem if we can't trust the U.S. temperature record? (PDF). Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. pp. front and back covers, p. 2. ISBN 978-1-934791-29-5. which rather differs from his more recent announcement about his views...has he recanted? . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure I fully follow Weart's wording about the effect of the bias, so worth checking it against Menne (2010) . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did quote the part about denial initially, but removed it just before saving. I know my quotes from sources have been getting longer and longer, and I figured that part was already covered by other sources anyway. I'm certainly not averse to playing musical chairs with the sources; if we need to swap or replace any of them, let's do that! I want to expand our coverage using them once I've finished cleaning them all up. Regarding Watts' stance, if he's changed his opinion, we should cover it. I'll look over that source and see what I find. Thanks, Dave!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On the first point, in my opinion Weart is respected and independent, and though brief, is a very high quality source for Watts' "denial of the warming in data". Slightly indirect, and as the cite from Watts himself shows the denial is aimed at undermining the credibility of warming data, not outright saying there's no warming, but that's a position covered in Climate change denial#Arguments and positions on global warming. Fair point about using the other sources first. . . dave souza, talk 06:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

p.s. the Menne paper was first published 8 June 2010. Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, UPDATED, AUGUST 27, 2010, "The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant 'global warming' at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of 'global warming." . .dave souza, talk 07:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I found WaPo sources on the BEST issue, covering the TOBS factor, and got puzzled about the timing: Watts' own blog cleared that up. So, I've edited it with additional sources, and split the BEST issue into a subsection. I'm not wedded to having that subsection, and wouldn't mind it being incorporated back into the parent Surface Stations section. One minor amusement, the citation formatting tool dates the WUWT Publications and Projects page 4 Aug 2012, but the only date shown is the current month above the calender at the bottom of the page. Perhaps a bit slow to update his page! . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice job, Dave! I hope you haven't been discouraged by my reduced participation the last few days; I've been trying to hold myself back from making any content additions until all the drama dies down; resolution at AE will be helpful. It's been a hard goal, since I've now read a chunk of every one of our sources (and then some), and I was looking forward to better incorporating them. It looks like you've done a good job with that section! Thanks for keeping me involved! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Directed at whom?

Jess, this edit is addressed to someone named Peter. I think it is a mistake, but checking here to see if you were actually responding to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. That reply was intended for you. I was thinking your name was Peter for some reason; it was pretty late at the time, so I'll just blame it on me being tired. ;) Thanks for correcting me.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, my (late) brother's name is Peter. No problems, but I once responded (heatedly) to a message I thought was directed at me, then learned I was wrong, so I try to make sure I don't misread.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

NEED your help, please!

Hi Jess,

Thanks for your kind message. I would appreciate you help, please. I am an editor and am working to update and re-arrange poorly displayed or poorly organized information on some articles. I have started with the Ben Carson page, NOT the Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016 page. The first section I tried to update is in his Medical Career section, the Medal and awards sub-section. It does not mention his 2008 Lincoln Medal from Ford's Theatre. I tried to add that, with two citations, understanding that this page is semi-protected. Also, I tried to re-arrange the existing information there already since it is not reader-friendly. All I wanted to do is display the info with bullet points. I THINK I created the revisions correctly and clicked Save as needed, but I'm not sure I did it correctly since it has been over 24 hours since I tried the update as Ljhammond14 but no updates are evident yet. Do you know how to look to see if my request to edit is in a 'waiting room' or some preliminary area? Perhaps I didn't Save correctly or at the right time. I'm a little confused and if you can help me I would be very grateful!!! I suppose I need to come back here to read your reply......or perhaps it will show up on my Talk page for Ljhammond14. THANKS for any way you can help me!!! Ljhammond14 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ljhammond14: Hi! Thanks for dropping me a line! It looks like you were editing Talk:Ben_Carson, and you've managed to figure out how to make an edit request. That's awesome! It takes a little getting used to how some of this all works, and that can be one of the more confusing processes. I'm not familiar with that page at all (nor am I really familiar with Ben Carson), so I can't be much help in deciding how to present information on that page. But, your requests seem pretty reasonable to me, so I'm sure other editors will pop in and help out with them. I did complete the first one for you (the addition of the lincoln medal), since that addition seemed pretty straightforward. I'll leave the other two for regular editors on that page, since they might have more input on the subject area. Your best bet is just to discuss the issues with other editors on that page and see if you can collaborate to make improvements. Thanks for your suggestions! If you have any other trouble, feel free to drop me another line.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jess,

Somehow it is reassuring to be communicating with a fellow human out here in the big, bad land of Wikipedia (it's not really big and bad!) Thanks for your approval of the award Lincoln Medal edit. Will that just show up by magic and be live or will some other process come about? Yes, it was a bit daunting to figure out the Request for an Edit process but I tried to be patient and read and read and read.  :-) There are some issues with the Carson page but I've already posted a fix for the birth order of their 3 sons. Ben Jr. was born second, not first. Do you have any words of wisdom for me? There are a few more corrections I need to make but if you say just take it easy, slowly, a little at a time, that works or me. I can be patient if I need to be. (really, more patient with myself than anything.) Thanks again for your encouragement and I'll listen to all the advice you care to share. Happy weekend! Lois Ljhammond14 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Assyria. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
That section as it reads is purely POV, and violates our neutral point of view policy. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggest revising your complaint at AE

FYI, if I read it correctly, your AE complaint refers to "the article" (or its talk page) without telling the overburdened busy arbs when you jump from referencing the WUWT article/talk page, to the Anthony Watts (blogger) one. It might help the rest of the committee if you inserted some explanatory remarks. In your place I might leave the original text, but use small font to insert <small>clarification, here I am refering to the article "_________"</small>, but of course there's a million ways to go about it, assuming it needs doing at all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to distinguish between the two, since the content being discussed on both articles is identical. I was trying to focus on the behavior (also identical) across the topic without getting bogged down with details. I think I'll leave it as-is for now, which might be the wrong call, but I think the arbs have probably reviewed the case by now anyway, so we'll see what happens. I appreciate the feedback, though! Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. great job with attribution, please do a bit more paraphrasing and avoid large block quotes. Friendly reminder. I am not concerned about your edits. Keep up the good work.--Lucas559 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lucas. Thanks for the note! is there an edit in particular that caught your attention? I'm on a mobile device until tomorrow, so its tough to check my recent contribs to see which one probably caught your eye, and I can't recall any, besides the direct quotes inside ref tags at anthony watts. I appreciate the input! Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, back on a normal computer again. @Lucas559:, it looks like your bot caught this edit, which is adding a source with a direct quote. The quote is a bit lengthy, but I believe within the purview of fair use, since we are discussing its contents explicitly within the article body, and the quote cannot be reasonably shortened without losing some of that content. I'd recommend, if possible, the bot tried to avoid flagging content within the quote parameter of our citation templates, since that will always be copied from the source and should not be paraphrased. If you review the edit again and feel it is in any way not in compliance with our policies on copyright, please let me know, and I'll ask our copyright experts if and where I've gone wrong! Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're not the bot's owner. I submitted a report. Anyway, thanks again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements.

Edit Warring???

Making one (One!) edit is not and can never be considered edit warring. I note that you have engaged in actual edit warring that page WP:3RR. Personal attacks and accusations of other ediotors is entirely inappropriate. Perhaps you should look for a seasoned editor that could mentor you and help you avoid your drift into incivility and further blocks. I frankly expect an apology. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and 3rr are different things. Another user has been making this change to several pages for a month, but has not engaged in discussion or made an effort to establish consensus for his edit. See the various talk pages for examples, and note the lack of substantive reply between reversions. Your edit jumped into the middle of that dispute to revert, but you made no effort to go to the talk page to discuss it either. Even your edit summary - "Better before" - added nothing to the discussion. Yes, that's edit warring; it is imposing your preferred version via reverting instead of discussion and consensus building. It's really no big deal in this case, I simply asked you to participate in the discussion instead of edit warring. If you're interested in being involved in the discussion, please join it, but if your interest is imposing your preferences via reverting without discussion, please don't do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I take it by this that you are not actually apologizing for calling my one reversion "Edit warring" nor do you think that your actual improper edit warring is in any sense wrong...OK. I have seen this sort of behavior before, it doesn't usually end well. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

AWB, I suggested it might be time for you to take a break from your CC "campaign". Please consider this. As CM noted, it usually doesn't end well. Just a thought, from someone who has seen a lot of this stuff over the years. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@CM, no, I'm not going to apologize for asking you not to edit war. Please don't edit war. Yes, jumping into a dispute only to revert without making any effort to participate in the discussion or give a proper rationale for your revert is edit warring. I'm sorry this is apparently offensive to you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Further reading at CCD

Thanks for cleaning this up. Big improvement! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Environment, Climate Change Task Force invitation

Thank you for your contributions to Environment/Environmentalism related articles, and/or improvements to the coverage of environmental topics throughout Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Environment? WikiProject Environment is a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the natural environment and biophysical environment. If you would like to participate or join, please add your name to the members list here, or visit the project page for more information. Thanks! ~~~~ Click here to visit the project page

Thank you very much for your recent contributions! Please consider joining our climate change task force and watching the talk page. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikinic Buffalo

Wiknik Buffalo is being planned for July 26, 2015. You can find more information here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Buffalo. BuffaloBob (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your AE filing

Can you split the filing into two separate sections? Just for the sake of clarity and stuff. Would be much appreciated. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)