User talk:Mann jess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Global warming skepticism and climate change denial[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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)


Editors Barnstar.png 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[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[edit]

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. I believe you when you say the suit is inactive. 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[edit]

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. (Wiley-Blackwell) 115 (D11). doi:10.1029/2009jd013094. Retrieved 27 May 2015.  [1]</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?[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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???[edit]

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)
You did not "ask me not to edit war", you accused me of edit warring. I have not engaged in it and my one edit was not and is not "edit warring" under anyone's definition. Your behavior continues to be uncollegial and uncivil. Your battleground activity is inappropriate, so yes I find it offensive. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. This happened over a month ago, so I had to look into the history to remember the details. Tillman made a change on the 23rd and said "See talk". I responded to him and reverted, pointing to 2 active discussions on the topic. About a day later, you reverted me, reinstituting Tillman's change. Your edit summary was "better before", which does nothing except express a personal preference, and you made no attempt to participate in either discussion. I would have hoped you would have participated in the discussion instead of reverting, or at the very least made an effort to respond to other editors while reverting. When an editor ignores discussion and attempts to institute their preference into the article via reverting alone, I call that "edit warring". I don't think I'm alone in that respect, but you are welcome to call it whatever you'd like. I didn't template you, or warn you in any way, I simply asked you to participate in the discussion instead of reverting. I believe that was an appropriate request.   — Jess· Δ 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Further reading at CCD[edit]

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

Wikiproject Environment, Climate Change Task Force invitation[edit]

The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg

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! ~~~~

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![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

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[edit]

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)

The date has been changed to August 2nd. BuffaloBob (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your AE filing[edit]

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)

Sure. I wasn't sure which would be the easiest. I'll make an attempt at that. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 04:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
All done. I hope that helps. If that wasn't what you were hoping for (or you think there's something else I can do to make it easier), let me know! Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 04:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That was exactly what I asked, thank you. On a different issue, however: You did not notify either editors, which you are required to do for valid AE requests. In both requests, add in ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : , followed by the notification diff, at the bottom of your initial statement. If you need an idea what the format looks like, look at the editnotice of the AE page, click on click this link, and hit preview. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Yea, it was a long night. They were both aware of the NEG thread (I had notified Tillman already). I just posted to let them both know of the move to a new section. Thanks Penwhale!   — Jess· Δ 12:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

William Lane Craig[edit]

The number of times that people refer to William Lane Craig mentioning his educational achievement or mentioning the terms 'Professor of Philosophy' or 'Philosophy Professor' should be noted in making decisions about what to put first in terms of philosopher, apologist, or theologian.

Moreover, along with the academic book references I have already contributed to the main Wikipedia page for William Lane Craig, two additional non-news sources are listed below which describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher and do not mention the words 'apologist', 'Christian apologist', 'theologian' nor 'Christian theologian'. The person responsible for the first source is an atheist. The person responsible for the second source is a Muslim. The only career title given to William Lane Craig in these two sources are as a philosopher.

A blog entry by an atheist cosmologist Sean Carroll states that he is a philosopher and theologian (the word 'apologist' only appears once and only in user comments, and not by Sean Carroll himself, further down the page):

Similarly, Peter S. Williams, author of A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom (2013; Milton Keynes: Paternoster; ISBN: 9781842278116), states in multiple blog entries that William Lane Craig is a 'Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist':

I suspect that most academic in-text citations of William Lane Craig are similar to the format Craig (year) or Craig (year, page number) without any describing words. When published, particularly by philosophers other than William Lane Craig himself, in academic books on topics within philosophy and academic philosophy journals, the principle of charity could suggest that it is best to interpret that author as thinking of William Lane Craig in terms of being a philosopher first unless that philosopher has used another word to describe William Lane Craig in the journal article when first mentioning him, or unless the philosopher is using William Lane Craig's work to make a point unrelated to William Lane Craig's work in philosophy of religion, or perhaps unless that philosopher states that - in citing William Lane Craig - they are attempting to be interdisciplinary in their approach to writing the philosophy article/book and that they believe that William Lane Craig represents a different discipline to philosophy.

Col8lok8 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Soal[edit]

I failed to revert far enough; that IP changed three times today. My edit summary was meant as a revert to your last, which you just restored. I'll do better next time. ScrpIronIV 20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I think you misunderstood my edit summary. I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the ip, who said the content he was adding had been in the article for a long time, and was only recently removed. He was incorrect. You did a fine job, I was just cleaning up a few edits before the last one. :) He keeps hopping ips. Thanks for the message!   — Jess· Δ 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We were (mostly) on the same page - I was merely apologizing for not reverting far enough earlier. I cleaned up a little, but still left a mess behind for you to clean up :-) Have a great day! ScrpIronIV 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. 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, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

I was curious, and discovered that User:John.r.r has not made a single mainspace edit, only discussed topics on talk pages. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se, I guess. I put a note on their talk page though, pointing out that they have the ability to edit articles as well. We'll see how that goes. --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. SPAs that pop up like this are often not "new" editors. Who knows if that's the case here, but if it isn't, your advice might help him communicate a more concrete proposal. I don't think there's much to worry about now, someone just needs to work with him to learn the ropes, and unfortunately I don't have the time to take it on myself. Thanks for your note! I appreciate it! :)   — Jess· Δ 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar!

The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there!

Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)