Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 31 March 2014

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Welcome!

Stormfront edit

Hi, sorry, I did not see a place to put an edit summary. My changes were to remove the reference to "white supremacist," "neo-Nazi" and "hate site" and make the description more unbiased.

"White supremacy" is an ideology of wanting whites to rule over others. Neo-Nazi I suppose refers to modern-day National Socialists, and "hate" is an arbitrary opinion.

To the first, I would say that Stormfront's official stance is that it desires the preservation of White European people, not tyranny over others. Certainly, some SF members may support that, but I'm sure there are members of, say, the Republican party who are White Supremacists, but we do not, therefore, say the GOP is a White Supremacist party.

As for "neo-Nazi," Stormfront actually bans the use of Swastikas and there is absolutely nothing on the site suggesting any special support for the ideology of National Socialism.

Finally, hate site: As I said, "hate" is an arbitrary term. Racial epithets and random slander of non-Whites is not permitted on Stormfront. There is frank discussion of crime statistics and achievement gaps, granted, but to say that constitutes hatred is an opinion and has no place on an article proposing to espouse fact.

Thank you for your time! 24.102.168.139 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey 24.102. Welcome to wikipedia! There are a couple content policies we have here, that you may want to read through. WP:V and WP:OR are important ones. The reason we have that content listed in the article is because it is supported by reliable sources. Keep in mind that wikipedia's purpose is only to summarize what reliable sources say (with respect consideration for their due weight). In order to remove the content, we would need to have other sources, independent of the subject, which indicated there was some controversy or doubt that these labels applied. Keep in mind that our current sourcing is very strong - stormfront is seen this way in virtually all its independent coverage. I hope that helps!   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

2nd revert on list violates 1RR restriction

Please undue your 2nd revert on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This is a violation of the 1RR restriction and your 2nd revert may result in a block or topic ban. You may engage in the discussion on the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any indication there is a 1RR restriction. I checked the article talk page, the discretionary sanctions for climate change, and the recent discussions on Afd, and I see no mention of one. If I'm mistaken, please point me to it. However, bear in mind that your removal of content that was just reintroduced constitutes a revert, which means that you are at 2 for today as well (and before me). I really have no interest in counting reverts and wikilawyering. I'm interested in helping to improve the article. I've asked for your input on the talk page multiple times now - the edit you're making is contrary to existing consensus, and your vague claims of BLP issues have not so far been backed up. I'm happy to work with you, but I need you to explain the problem on the talk page before I can do that. Please leave the version of the article alone that currently has consensus until you're able to clearly indicate a problem or establish new consensus for the change. If there is a problem with these names, I will support their removal. Until then, they are well sourced and amply discussed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

review I believe there is a 1RR restriction in place. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I already looked that over. I see no mention of "1RR" anywhere, nor any discussion of general restrictions on the number of reverts anywhere. Pointing me back to the entire arbcom case isn't very helpful. I do not believe this article is under a 1RR restriction. If I'm wrong, please show me. Quote it, or link me directly to it, please. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping keep the talkpage on Abiogenesis clean.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Good to run into you again :) I added one comment from the ip back to the page in the hopes that he'll take the bone and stop warring. If that doesn't work, we can go to AN3. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood, though, it doesn't look like it, or the trolls are trying to recruit fleshpuppets.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I filed a request at RfPP.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Femen

The info was previously present in the voice and sourced, so it's you who should discuss before removing it, not me. Why should I discuss before reverting unilateral edits done by a single user? --Lenore (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Because this is a BLP issue, and you should take care before reintroducing content which may violate our core policies
2. Because the burden is on the editor restoring material to justify its inclusion
3. Because the content is not reliably sourced. The fox news article doesn't even contain the word "FEMEN" in it anywhere.
4. Because, per BRD, discussion should follow a revert. Not another revert.
5. Because assuming good faith is a foundational pillar of wikipedia.
6. Because I provided a clear explanation of all of this in my edit summaries already
7. Because you don't want to come off as extremely aggressive, like you have, which limits future collaboration. How about you read the sources, and then go to the article talk page with your concerns. I'll work with you, but your approach, here, is not helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has all the informations you need. --Lenore (talk) 3:16 pm, Today (UTC−5)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, that is not a RS, and it has absolutely no place on wikipedia. Take it to the talk page and I'll discuss it with you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Joseph Torrez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Conspiracy and No Holds Barred

List of trails in New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to High Line and Harriman State Park

1986 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MMA

Las Cruces, New Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MMA

Mayfield High School (New Mexico) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MMA

Torres (surname) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MMA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Last call for Support/Oppose survey at Problem of Evil page.

There are now several references posted on the Problem of Evil page. Last call for Support/Oppose survey on Problem of Evil page. FelixRosch (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Felix, you should read WP:VOTE. In any case, I responded to you on talk. Please answer my question there directly without adding any additional commentary. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sacandaga River, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lake Pleasant and Impoundment (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, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

Hello Jess, I noticed your edits to Psychokinesis and I thought I would stop by and ask you your opinion of Psychokinesis’s ever problematic list. In its present form the list is currently attempting to be a comprehensive catalog of all concepts that have ever been labeled “telekinesis” in the entirety of the human experience. I’m not sure that such a list is terribly useful, and I think the readers might be better served by a list that excludes fictional telekinesis. However, I don’t want to go against the consensus on the topic, so I’m asking you your opinion first. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, the lack of distinction between fictional and claimed abilities is certainly a problem. That said, I don't think we should exclude fictional abilities from the article all together. The article scope is (I think correctly so) psychokinesis as a whole, including its fictional coverage. We do need to distinguish between the two, however. Breaking the list into two sections might be one solution (see List of psychic abilities and List of superhuman abilities, for example), but given the current list is so small, I don't personally think that's necessary. I think it would be best to simply note fictional abilities as such. Expanding each entry with a short description of its history might be beneficial. For instance: Pyrokinesis - the ability to raise temperature and light objects on fire. The ability was first claimed by A.W. Underwood in the 19th century, and later coined in Steven King's novel Firestarter. With the exception of a few historical claims, this ability appears most often in fiction. Do you think that would help address the problem? Let me know if you have other ideas.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on it. See User:Mann_jess/Workspace. Let me know if you have any input.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good deal. I was going to raise the issue on the article's talk page first (it always feels good to have a consensus backing me up) but perhaps boldness would be a quicker approach. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I had a go at it, and I was able to add two more examples of psychokinesis to the list in your workspace. I’ll see if there’s anything else I can dig up. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good! It's been a long night out for me away from WP, but I'll see if I can finish up whatever's left tomorrow. Time for some sleep! :) Thanks for your help!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright Jess, I’ve given that draft in your workspace a thorough work over, and I think it’s probably ready for prime time. Whenever you’re satisfied with it feel free to insert it into the article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey 76.107. Thanks again! Sorry I didn't get to expanding the list yesterday, I got caught up working on another topic, which has been a whole different mess! Whew! I see you've been doing some work on the list; thanks so much! I'll look it over, expand it if I can, and pop it in the article once I get a chance! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

College festival

I want to add my college festival named 'Pyrokinesis' to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abinash Medhi (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abinash. If there are sources (like news articles) which talk about the festival, then you might be able to create a new article for it. You can't just remove a whole article we currently have to put information about the festival. It would go somewhere like this: Pyrokinesis (festival). Before you create an article, you should read WP:GNG. It would need significant coverage in independent sources to qualify. I think what might be best is to put the information in the article about your college. So, make a new section in Assam Engineering College, and put the information there. We still need sources to do that, so try to track down a newspaper or book where it's talked about, if you can. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine

Just clicking on the "thank" button didn't seem adequate, so I decided to say "Thanks" here instead, for the edits today. Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy! I've been working on parapsychology and naturopathy articles over the last few days... so much to clean up in both areas! I was expecting more drama, so when I saw someone posted to my talk page I thought "great... here it comes!" Seeing your message instead was really nice :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN request closed

Hello, I am Mann jess, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled "Antichess". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because there was no substantial discussion on a talk page. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Mann jess (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2024 This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.

• Additional comments by volunteer: After a good discussion has occurred and you hit a roadblock, 3O is suggested instead of this noticeboard as there are currently only two users in the dispute.

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cryptid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creature (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, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Stance

I've read over your neutral stance stuff. When dealing with pseudoscience, if it still has a number of followers, such as astrology, the guidelines make it clear to distinguish that the scientific community regards it as a pseudoscience. When looking at articles on ESP and parapsychology, it does state that the scientific community rejects it and considers it a pseudoscience instead of simply calling it a pseudoscience as a fact. If you want to believe otherwise, I think you should quit Misplaced Pages and go to "Rational Wiki", which is biased, bashing what they disagree with. Misplaced Pages isn't like that. The scientific community considers it a pseudoscience, but many also don't; the article needs to make that clear.

99.229.246.140 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi 99.229, the proper place to talk about this is the article talk page. Why don't you make a new section there, so that I (and anyone else interested in the article) can participate? Basically, we typically give a large amount of WP:WEIGHT to the scientific community's opinion, and less weight to fringe and minority views. WP:FRINGE talks about this a bit. To include discussion (or implication) about the "many who don't" consider it pseudoscience, we would need to have some sources on hand which discussed their opinion, and how it has been received globally. My suspicion is that they are in a distinct minority, based on my understanding of the topic, but I would be happy to see sources demonstrating otherwise! I hope that helps.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial edit difficulty

"Your sources" don't support the 6 million figure as established fact. Even Yad Vashem disagrees with you here:

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/resources/names/faq.asp

That's just for starters.

Regardless of the nitty gritty details though, which I don't think you have the understanding of the issue to sufficiently argue, I was only trying to add more neutral language to an otherwise intellectually hostile article. Holocaust revisionism exists because the evidence for commonly asserted claims about those historical events are surprisingly lacking.

And I did "take it to talk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostc (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in debating holocaust denial on my talk page at 1:00am. Let's keep it on the article talk page, please. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So why are you reverting my edits of biased langauge to neutral language on that page? Why are you sticking your head into something you actually have no intention of following through with in any reasoned way? I see through your facade of helpfulness. You don't know what you're getting yourself into. That page is biased, perjorative, and largely an attempt to uphold the slanders and misdirections on the main Holocaust page. The sources are just as biased as the rest. I don't care what or when you want to talk about, you reverted my tiny, but important edits with the handwave of "I'm right, you're wrong, but I don't want to discuss it". You don't represent Misplaced Pages, by the way, don't lecture me either. Your reversions were ignorant and uncivil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostc (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not going to get far with someone who doesn't understand - or probably doesn't agree with, our policies. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seth Material, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channeling (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) 09:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naturopathy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington State and Relaxation (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) 09:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup

As you suspected, it was you who deleted Becker. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks! I'm having so much trouble with that article; there's so much repetition, lack of connection from one idea to the next, contradictory statements, etc. Still a lot more to do... I'm just trying to restructure one piece at a time, and I haven't gotten to extensively reviewing each source quire yet. Anyway, thanks for helping me track that down. I'll reintroduce it somewhere. :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

I don't know how this ended up in the blue box? Just delete it once you've had a look. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Yea, I just saw your reply. I'm going to trawl through the sources more (per NoFormation's post) once I get a chance. My recollection is that the sentence you found contentious had a direct source, but I don't know which one offhand. I restructured the article quite a bit since then, since the body was a complete mess. If I'm able to track it down, I'll let you know. :) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

German water Memory

Dear Jess,

I started to create the German version of the article "Water memory" ("Gedächtniseffekt des Wassers" in German), however a user has deleted my contribution within the next hour, without any resonable reason. I would like to complain about that. Some people try to hide the information.

what can we do in this case?

Thank you for your support and Regards Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.nonciaux (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anthony! I wish I could say my German was rusty, but that would imply I knew any German at all. I don't, so I can't be of too much help. Each language wikipedia operates differently, so the German WP might have different content or editing policies than we do. I don't know. Just going based on my understanding of English WP, here's what I would try:

• If the article was deleted after you created it, then ask the admin who deleted it why. My guess is that they could feel it's a content fork of Homeopathy. They may be right. If the Homeopathy article is already long, and you point to the sources on Benveniste and other research, you may (or may not) have a convincing argument at deletion review (if they have a process like that). If not, then the content could possibly belong in the Homeopathy article instead.
• If the article still exists, but your content was removed, then go to the article talk page and ask why. Being succinct has always helped me. In this diff, I changed the article, but it was reverted. My text was backed up by this source. What's wrong with adding this content?
• If you're just having trouble working with other editors, then try to find some kind of dispute resolution on the German WP. Here, we have WP:DR with a number of suggestions, and WP:ANI for getting the attention of an admin. I'm guessing German WP has something like that too, you'll just have to find it.
• If none of that works, then find an admin or experienced editor over there, and ask them what to do. They'll be familiar with German WP's policies, and they'll be able to help you better than I can.

Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Creationism Talk

Mann - Thank you for putting in my signature - I thought I had inserted it - but I did not split the other Editors comments. One was from the 23rd and one was from the 24th. Not embarrassed or irritated - just pointing out that the basis of your edit comments was incorrect. I shouldn't have gotten into the discussion with Fink that I did - since he and I clearly do not see eye to eye - but at this point its water under the bridge. Thanks again - Ckruschke (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Heh. No, not you. Apokryltaros replied in the middle of your comment, which broke your post into two. I just added your sig to the top part of your comment so your words would still be attributed to you. My comment was to him. He did it to avoid quoting you, but that's a bad reason.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok - sorry - my "knee-jerk". Bottomline is I somewhat created the issue and really shouldn't have been involved in a discussion which I essentially knew at the onset how it would end. Tend to be hard headed when people assert opinion as truth and that's what started the snowball, but that's my issue. Thanks again - Ckruschke (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yea, no worries. You have the right idea; we're all volunteers, and if a discussion is stressing you out, it's usually best to let it go and work on something else productive. :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, behave realistically on the "Psychokinesis" talkpage.

Please, practice what you preach and stop lying about me on the talkpage. In one of my posts, I explained your errors—misreading your own citation—but you flatly stated that you refused to even read past the first sentence. Then you proceed to lie and lie about me, and lie about your own citations. Please, use the talkpage to discuss the topic, not play shenanigans while lying about me. Occurring (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of lying is a personal attack, and one I already warned you for. You need to knock it off. I told you exactly where to go if you had additional objections; attacking me in response is wholly inappropriate. Drop the stick, or go to the proper venue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Objections to evolution

Markbassett continues to post on this thread Talk:Objections to evolution#New title or new sectioning ? and I might be dense, but I still don't understand what he's asking for - whether the page is focusing too much or too little on a specific subject is somewhat beyond me. I read his most recent post twice and he seems to be talking so generically about what he thinks is wrong/what should be added, I can't see a specific fix anywhere in there... Ckruschke (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

You're right. He wants to remove certain content from the article, and he's taken an "I didn't hear that" approach to discussing it. I told him exactly what we'd need to make his changes, and where he should go to get additional input, but he hasn't taken my suggestions. It's likely he thinks that if he repeatedly asks for things to be spelled out for him, other editors will get tired and he'll just be able to make whatever changes he wants. It doesn't work that way, and I've been simply avoiding his petitions that I repeat myself in the meantime. If he doesn't want to work collaboratively, there's no "forcing" him to collaborate. I'd suggest just leaving the conversation alone. If he won't follow our normal dispute resolution processes, then he'll either need to drop the stick or he'll become more disruptive and we'll have to consider sanctions. I'm betting on the former, and that should be a fine solution for everyone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds advice - especially letting it lie - which I'm not good at. I've already pointed out to him once that he wasn't responding to your requests. If he can't insert his suggested edits/additions, there isn't a whole lot we can do. Ckruschke (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National College of Natural Medicine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Stone, Robert Fleming and Condominiums (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) 09:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reporting

It might be worth reporting PhiChiPsiOmega because he's personally attacking me on my talk page from his IP address 69.14.156.143 and he's now posting elsewhere claiming the Arbitration Committee are wrong. Let me know what you think. Goblin Face (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I have filed a complaint on the Misplaced Pages admin board. I would like your input. Goblin Face (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for letting me know. Filing at ANI might turn out to be inevitable, but I think it's also premature. I think the response you are likely to get is to wait and try other methods of dispute resolution. Remember, it's only been a few days. That being said, I think you are right that there is not likely to be any good coming out of the discussions at Talk:Parapsychology happening now. I would have suggested pointing to our noticeboards (like RSN) at the discussion, and hoping the issue settled out on its own. Sorry I didn't get to suggest that here before you filed at ANI. Anyway, let's see what sorts of responses come in, and we'll go from there. Make sure to notify Phi of the ANI thread with the {{Ani-notice}} template, too!   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you check the admin board over the parapsychology issue, a banned user 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) (Ben Steigmann) has turned up and admitted which sock puppets were his. You would have to check his two posts but he's publicly confessed to most of these being him.

This were him: It's likely these sock puppets were also him

He's confessed to most of them yet his account remains not blocked. It's likely he has loads of secret IPs or accounts on Misplaced Pages as well. I respect his honesty for admitting which ones were his but per policy his above IP should be blocked as well. How do we deal with this? Goblin Face (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If he's banned, or his main account is blocked indefinitely, then RBI; his edits should be reverted, hatted, removed, or ignored. If his main account isn't sanctioned, then it isn't relevant that his sockpuppets were. We usually indef socks, but only block the main account for a certain length of time, allowing them to come back without socking later. If that's so, then another ANI section would have to be started if he was being disruptive in order to apply new sanctions. I'll take a look at those links you provided and see which is the case, and I'll remove his comments if it's appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Goblin Face: Blastikus is indefinitely blocked, so I've remove his comments on ANI. If he posts again, feel free to revert him on that basis. I also removed your replies to him (because I'm not sure they'd make sense otherwise), but feel free to restore your comments if you'd like.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks for this. I have also requested for the section I created on the admin board to be closed as I don't think anything else can be done about the situation. Goblin Face (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eileen J. Garrett, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Booth and Warren Jones (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) 09:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sam Parnia

Can you look over the current events on the Sam Parnia article. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

He's taken it here now Goblin Face (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. The only thing that could possibly come out of his complaint is getting himself blocked. It's more likely nothing will happen at all. I already filed at RfPP, asking for semi-protection. That should be handled later today.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work also see the latest events on the parapsychology talk-page. Goblin Face (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. That one's on my watchlist. I wouldn't worry about it; there's enough editors watching that page and responding, and his post is just repeating the same ground we've already been over. If there's a need for new editors to respond, I'll step in. He hasn't been taking my advice, though. Eventually, it may require sanctions, but not until at least a month from now. In the meantime, I find it's best to just relax and let the dialog be infrequent when it's otherwise unproductive. A day or two between responses gives everyone (particularly him) time to think and research, and cuts out a lot of stress. That's my approach, anyway.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again can you check what's going on, on the Sam Parnia article. See the bottom of the talk-page. Goblin Face (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh. It's no bother. I would've gotten to it eventually; I watchlisted Parnia as well after the recent changes. I hope that helps!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research in the body and the lede

I'm going to move this discussion to the article talk page and address is there. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm usually in full agreement with your changes. This time, I think we disagree on a few points. You seem to want more text and detail in the lead than I do, which seems to be the biggest point of contention. On the whole, that's not a big disagreement to be having. I understand you're trying to improve the article (so am I, obviously), and I'm happy to discuss it with you more. It's tough, since we don't have a lot of editors participating this time, but that's how WP works.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I responded to another post you made, but you removed it before I hit save, so now things are a little out of sync. Anyway, here's the reply I wrote to you (above).   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Avraham Qanaï

I am Hakham Avraham Ben-Rahamiël Qanaï and I removed from the article about my being a Karaite Hakham the references to being branch secretary of the James Connolly Upstate NY Regional General Membership Branch of the IWW because I am no longer the branch secretary and it is completely irrelevant to the article and to my having been a Naturopayhic Physician because 1) I am retired from practice, 2) the prejudiced statements by the bigoted site quackwatch, and 3) because it is completely irrelevant to to the article.67.240.20.93 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Avraham. Thanks for coming by! We can certainly update your article to reflect the most current information. We have to go by sources on wikipedia, so the best way for us to get updated information into the article is for us to use a source that talks about what you currently do. We can't remove other sourced information. The article isn't just about your being a Karaite Hakham; it's about you as a whole, which includes your previous practice. If you know of some other sources, besides Quackwatch, which discuss your practice in more detail, we might be able to use them to include more information on your background. I hope that helps! Misplaced Pages can take some time to get acclimated to, so let me know if you have any other questions, or if I can help in any way. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First, the person who created the article did so purely about my being a Karaite Hakham and not about anything else. Second, quackwatch is about as “objective” when it comes to non-allopathic medicine as Stormfront is about Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and other “non-aryans”.

An article about the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower does not talk about his having been a paperboy when he was a teenager because it is irrelevant to his presidency, an article about about the pope doesn’t talk about his preference in pasta because it is irrelevant to his papacy, an article about your Misplaced Pages editing does not talk about whether or not you wet the bed as a kid because it is irrelevant to your being a Misplaced Pages editor.

Any reference to such things in those articles because they may be mentioned in web links that are trying to defame the Eisenhower presidency, the papacy, or your being a Misplaced Pages editor would be considered irrelevant and purposefully misdirecting in order to detract or defame. Such references are the stuff of bullies and demagogues.67.240.20.93 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles change and evolve over time. That means that new information will be added to them as editors get time to find sources and include new content. Using your example, the Dwight D. Eisenhower article includes information about him being a golf enthusiast and a member of the military, prior to his presidency. This is rightly so, because the article isn't only about his presidency. The Avraham Qanaï article is not only about Judaism. If there was significant coverage about the Pope's love for Pasta, it would be included in his article too. The reason it's not is because it's not covered by reliable sources in any significant way. Please read over our policy on edit warring. You should go to the article talk page and discuss your proposal. Do not continue to removing content from the article without discussing it. Please also keep in mind that we have no way of determining if you are who you say you are, which is a big reason why we need reliable sources to make changes to the article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Honorton

Is there any chance you can watch over the Charles Honorton and the ganzfeld experiment article. A user is deleting skeptical references claiming they are "POV" and inserting unreliable parapsychology fringe journals. I have reverted him once but he will probably do the same again. Goblin Face (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Watchlisted. I believe I've worked on ganzfield before, anyway. There's just so many fringe articles, it's hard to keep abreast of them all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, can you check his point about Terence Hines. He seems to think Hines is contradicted by the other sources. I would need some other opinions on this. Goblin Face (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The conversation seems to have tapered off a bit. I haven't had a ton of time for tracking down sources, but I've been watching a bit. If things pick up again, I'll try to find some time to look into it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of Misplaced Pages article entitled: "Psalms"

Mann jess,

I want to help the accuracy of the wikipedia article entitled: "Psalms". Specifically, I think that the first paragraph of the article is misleading, specifically the line which states:

There are 150 psalms in the Jewish and Western Christian tradition (more in the Eastern Christian churches), many of them linked to the name of King David, but his authorship is not accepted by most modern Bible scholars.

Authorship of SOME of the Psalms IS attributed to King David. The article, as it is, states that they are only "linked" and that his authorship is " . . . not accepted by most modern Bible scholars.?

Can you please communicate with me on this issue. I am happy to do the research and post sources in support of my position.

What do you think?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearDivinity (talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Whew. That's a topic I know almost nothing about. I'd have to dig through sources to really find out what's going on with that line, and whether a change would be appropriate. If you know of sources which support your position, then I would suggest making a change to the article and adding those sources at the end as references. If you have any trouble doing that, feel free to let me know and I can help out. Once you've tried making a change to the article, you'll find out if its contentious with other editors or not. If not, then great! You're done. If other editors disagree with the change, then it'd be time to discuss it with them on the talk page. I'm willing to bet they know more about the topic than I do. Let me know if you need my help. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Voronezh UFO incident (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alien, Hatch and Extraterrestrial

Ganzfeld experiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Saunders

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:CON

Hi there! Concerning your revert (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Creation_science&diff=601387804&oldid=601386966), please notice that regarding the edits of article Creation Science, it all started as a change FROM creation scientist TO creationist, and therefore creation scientist should stay until a consensus is reached. I have pretty bad vibes that this all is escalating into a conflict between pro-creationists and con-creationists :P I'm sorry, I'm not pertaining to you but I mean in general...

As you can see from the article Talk Page, I've been trying to tell people that we do not have to agree with Creation Science, nor we do have to even appreciate it, but we can't change the fact that currently it is approved by the U.S. federal government as a classroom subject, there are accredited Universities with research in the field, and there are Universities also offering courses on the subject. Personally, I am not in favour of the present state of things, but I think we should try to keep a neutral point of view.

I think it'd be better to add some passages to the article, that deal with the criticism of creation science, the title they are using, and the whole academic validity of creation science as well, but so far there is University research on the field and we can't change that. :P

Anyway, what I like to think is that: "matters fight with matters; not the people" :) Thanks for your attention!! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR

Hello there again! Concerning your post on my User Page where you warned me from edit warring, could you please see the time and date of my edits below? Thanks!

1st edit: 24 March 2014, 13:56 2nd edit: 24 March 2014, 16:42 3rd edit: 26 March 2014, 18:10

Therefore, no edit warring. Also if you take a look at the reverts that have taken place, there has been pretty good exchange of views and arguments going on, so definately no edit war has taken place. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jayaguru. You should read WP:EW carefully. No editor is entitled to a certain number of reverts each day. The pattern you indicate above is absolutely edit warring. It is not breaking 3rr, which is a different (though related) rule. Please just try to be careful to participate on the talk page instead of edit warring in the future. I'm a little busy right now, so I can't respond to your message above in a lot of depth, but I'll try to get to it again when I get the chance. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response

Mann jess,

Thank you for your helpful response.

ClearDivinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearDivinity (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

pseudoscience

I would argue where chiropractic is licensed in about seventy jurisdictions across the globe calling it's practice "pseudoscience" does not match public reality.

As I said in my editorial comment, many chiropractors may hold dogmatic philosophical beliefs but the chiropractic profession is not pseudo scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshilts (talk • contribs) 18:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We go by sources on wikipedia. See WP:V. Our reliable secondary sources indicate that the pseudoscience label is accurate. You should go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, if you'd like.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In my last edit, I didn't remove your pseudoscience reference. I simply added a separate reference to dogmatic philosophy. This give more context to the information and makes it more accurate.

We both go by wikipedia sources. You don't own that domain. My objective is to respect and include your perspective. It seems you may be a bit too intolerant of my perspective when I am tolerant to yours. I would like include both of our material; they are not mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshilts (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you removed a bunch of sourced content that you had already removed & modified in previous edits. That's fine to do in your first edit, but when you've been reverted that signals that it's time to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Click the "Talk" link at the top left of the article, and it will take you to a page where you can discuss your changes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)