User talk:Mann jess

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

Welcome!

Hello, Mann jess, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism 3.0

The Atheism 3.0 article has been recreated by a new user, after it was deleted 3 days ago at AfD. I've asked the user to userfy the page until he gets it up to shape on his user page, and since you were the closing admin in the AfD, I figured I'd bring it to your attention as well. It seems silly to have this go to AfD again so soon, but I'm not sure of policy when it comes to this particular issue. Perhaps you would be able to userfy the original page for the user instead? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems silly to have to spend hours defending a perfectly decent start to a new article because someone else did a poor job of writing it and a poor job of defending it. I don't think you have standing to insist on userification and I do not consent. If you don't have solid policy mandate I will take an imposed userification as a case of censorship. I know you probably think otherwise,,,somebody said forgive them they know not what they do...but that doesn't make it right. I feel harassed and have lost interest in helping out on any other topic but the topics that get hit with this kind of deletionist edit warring. So if the schemes to get me blocked, which I know you were not involved in, succeed, there is nothing lost because I am not interested in other topics at WP unless I get some apologies or clarifications. Whydont cha give me a day to look at the old one and to look at the deletion discussion and if it seems to be the case that maybe you are correct I will concur. But now it seems like a POV swarm and I don't like it. If you are not willing to back off for a day then template for a deletion discussion silly though that may seem to you.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the new version and though the wording of the text is different, it uses the same sources as the deleted one. The concerns regarding the deleted article were that the sources were not sufficient, and that they centred on one author. The new article does not address these concerns, so I will delete the article per WP:G4. As per the request below, I will userfy both versions to Devilishlyhandsome's userspace. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been beseiged with a torrent of POV warriors ever since I tried to help out at Militant atheism and became so worn out by the shenanigans of a self-described churchman who tried to manipulate me into making a remark that he could use to mount a (failed) block attempt on me. Look at my edit to that page though, nobody has a problem with them I worked very hard and IMHO contributed very positively. Much to the chagrin of my accuser, the page and that whole issue died down and the result is my good edits stand.

Worn out by all that, I picked up on the red linked to Atheism 3.0 and spent quite a few hours either building that page, or now debating with two guys who think that four people, themselves included, through what they describe as a "vote" constitute a binding perpetual consensus that Wikipedia can't have an article on that topic.

To keep the discussion fair, I requested a copy of the old article. This is necessary because they are swamping me with a torrent of spurious objections which appear to rely on irrelevant comparisons to the old page, which I can't access. And much of what they contend it flatly fallacious. For instance, there is the claim that Ph D's and Harvard published authors are not R.S.

I don't have all the time in the world. I requested a copy of the old one and the other fellow agreed so I thought we had some peace for the moment. But he seems to think that the minimalist earlier discussion means that a new writer, who works diligently to produce a much more suitable article, is somehow barred from a recreation.

There was not a re-creation ban. I don't know if they are religious believers on a POV crusade to blockade or if they are legalistic Wikilawyers but their notion that the page is somehow now off limits to new authors we new ideas is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the wiki ways. I find it difficult not to become quite disillusioned with the whole Wikipedia project AND religion. But for the next twenty four hours I hope that you will be willing to post me a copy and everyone will hold their fire in this interminable edit warring on this topic.

If there is a policy not a guideline which implies a recreation ban automatically on deletions, and I doubt there is one, they can force userfication. Otherwise I will insist on an ordinary deletion discussion.

This time I also recommend

Notification of all interested parties
Full discussion of the actual issues of this version after there has been time to bring it to say C class, probably three days max
AN understanding that it is not a vote
A statement of what policies if any this article in this version supposedly violate.

I am trying to assume good faith but many of the claims that are being made are so outragous I am beginning to wonder.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new article is based on the same sources as the deleted article, and it was the sources that were the reason for deletion. As the new article is essentially a recreation of the deleted article our policy per WP:G4 is that it is deleted without a need for a new discussion. As you have requested I userfy the old version, I will also userfy the new version in your userspace so you can work on it. I will be quite happy to look at the article on request as you develop it and advise you when it is ready to be moved back into mainspace. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SilkTork. I appreciate you looking into it. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism and religion

Hey, just wanted to drop by and let you know that you technically broke 3RR on the Atheism and religion article. I'm not disagreeing with the substance of the reverts or anything, but just wanted to let you know all the same (3RR being a bright-line rule and all). It's just something I noticed that you may not have been paying attention to. - Sudo Ghost 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The policy must have been changed since I last read it. 3RR now very explicitly applies to reverting different content. Usually, I restrain myself to 1 revert for a given change, except in exceptional cases where 2 reverts seem likely to solve the dispute. It seems odd to me that my last revert (the first one of entirely new material) would put me over the line, especially given the clear disruptive violation of WP:POINT. I'll have to look into it further and see how 3rr is now being applied in these cases. Thanks for the notice! :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It appears (per discussion on the policy talk page) that consensus dictates it is okay to revert distinct content in distinct disputes more than 3 times on a given page when the effect is not combative edit warring, justified per IAR. I'm really uncomfortable with that, particularly since 3rr is specified so clearly as a "bright line rule", but I guess that's how it is... Anyway, moving on... — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mann jess. Forgive me for joining an old discussion on your talk page, which I just happened to see. Your conclusion I think is the opposite to what happened on the policy talk page. *Any* four reverts still break the rule, at least the way I read the policy. That proposed exemption was to broaden the window to allow four reverts under some conditions. The proposed change did not get consensus. WP:EW still says: ..an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period..Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, the policy page still says that; Going by the policy page wording, it's a hard line at 4 reverts, regardless of content or effect. However, the discussion I linked above seems to have arrived at a consensus that some cases of 4 reverts are okay, (even if the policy page doesn't say so), which editors justified by IAR. I'm not comfortable violating policy based on IAR. (And based on this wording, I'm not sure how else to handle multiple additions of obviously inappropriate content by multiple editors on high traffic pages) I'd take it up on the EW talk page, but I wouldn't have time ATM to follow up with it. Alas. I appreciate the clarification. Were I to be wrong about community consensus, I would obviously want to know, but that's my reading. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Nature

Hello. You deleted some recent work on the Buddha nature article. Perhaps you would explain why you did this as your edit summary does not make this clear. Best wishes 81.107.150.246 (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I specified in my edit summary, your initial edit removed sourced material without specifying a reason. Also, your new content which you've restored adds a good deal of new material which is unsourced. Further, please read WP:VAND, as "vandalism" has a distinct meaning, and misusing it is frowned upon. Please also use the talk page to discuss your proposal, instead of edit warring. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the time and care to read articles before editing them it would save us all time and energy. Your edits to the Theism article demonstrate that you have not read the discussion page which clearly enunciates what is wrong with the current article. Regarding the Buddha nature article you claim I have removed sourced material. You have not bothered to check whether what you say is true or not. You simply take it from the information listed next to the edit summary and make your pronouncement. You are unaware that the text removed (which contained a reference to Jeffrey Hopkins) had previously been duplicated from the introduction. The sourced material and reference you claimed I removed is in fact in the introduction. All the material is there intact with the reference. So it is not that I am edit warring, it is rather that you are not being very diligent or assiduous in your editing and thereby wasting other people's time. Please do not continue to remove templates from the theism article. If you continue to do so I will report your behaviour to an administrator. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the discussion page? I posted on the discussion page on the first revert, and explicitly asked you to respond there. You have yet to do so. Stop edit warring, and discuss your changes on the talk page. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying the section headers in reports you file at AN3

Hello Mann jess. Since I often use section header when documenting closures of 3RR cases, it would be helpful if you could avoid putting your full signature there, with all the formatting. For example, WP:AN3#User:Rainbowwrasse reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 48h) is a line that I may enter into the block log as part of the block reason. (I changed the header you originally created). Formatting in the block log will go nowhere, so it would save me having to reformat the header if you would just sign yourself in the header as User:Mann jess and not something more complex. Your full signature involves [[User:Mann_jess|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess|Δ]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|♥]]</span> This would not successfully transfer to the block log which is a plain text environment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I used to do that on my own just to make things more clear, but eventually I just got lazy and stuck with the 3rr helper tool's default header. I wasn't aware there was any actual reason I should cut it down, but if there is I'll start doing it again. Thanks for letting me know! No reason to impede others if I don't have to :P — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

>>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

metaphysical naturalism action

Please better explain your action in metaphysical naturalism article on the talk page. I'm confused. Mthoodhood (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]