User talk:JettaMann

Hello JettaMann and welcome to Wikipedia! Good work on the Atheism page; those little errors are terribly hard to catch. I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 20:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? -- JettaMann

That's not a polite way to respond to a polite welcome. Please read WP:CIVIL.

Are you kidding? Don't bite the newcomers yourself... heqs 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you propose to add controversial concepts based on flimsy evidence, consider suggesting it on article talk pages (reached by the "discussion" link at the top of each article) before adding to the article. I believe all of your edits yesterday/early today have been removed by regular editors of those articles for various reasons relating to the claims being doubtful and not well supported by quality references. See WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Welcome to Wikipedia, perhaps you should choose less controversial edits until you become more familiar with Wikipedia standards and policies. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I agree the source provided for the Aborigine origins with Neanderthal man was not conclusive enough, so I added more data (including DNA evidence which is pretty hard to argue with) in the Neanderthal discussion page. Hope this clears that issue up for you. -- JettaMann

Jetta man do some damn research. the "friend" is Aaron Russo, and he went on to make a documentary "America:Freedom to Fascism" after he learned these things, and ended his friendship with Rockefeller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.226.176 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JettaMann, make sure you sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~ , and it will show up like this: Awiseman 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Vigor Microlight, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually delete the page — I'm not an admin, and have no burning desire to be one. I just tag an article with a speedy delete, then an admin has to come along and agree with me to make it happen. I like it that way, as it gives some "backup" to make sure I don't tag something for no good reason. You can always re-post the article, but someone else may do a speedy delete too (I'll leave it alone), at which time you'd better figure it needs to be rewritten, or else just give up on it. I've been on your side of this kind of issue, too. Realkyhick 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ref to your paragraph. I think I did it right. Of course it'd be lovely to find the sources that the paper used. Shenme 04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 April 2006, you added a lot of links to www.commodorebook.com [1]. Two of these have been identified as spam [2][3], and I can't see why most of the others could be considered relevant. A book should be in #References only if content from the book has been used in the article (hence "references"), which I see no evidence of. Links to a page offering to sell the book are probably spam. Do you have any reasons to keep these links on other pages? ⇌Elektron 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of two books that deal with the topic of Commodore, MOS Technologies, etc... I think these are listed in further reading? That seems entirely appropriate for people who want more in depth information. JettaMann 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them have been removed with explanations in the edit comments (a lot of them not by me). Only add it to "references" if it has been used in the creation of the article (the section title "sources" is nonstandard), and "external links" if it's something worth looking at that doesn't just try to sell you something. In this case, a Harvard-style reference would've been more appropriate (in "Further reading", which most of them weren't), or preferably, read the book, add to the article, and use <ref> tags so it's obvious what relevance the book has (as has been done here. ⇌Elektron 10:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, that's not the case. Originally the links pointed the actual site for the book, which was claimed to be an ad. So as a compromise with Altari they were pointed to the current cite, with an actual excerpt, that is not promoted as an ad and has a simple link at the end of the page to buy the book. The book is a valid reference and source for Commodore history and well known by researchers and the Commodore community. I've put back some of them, and changed the link to a review of the book. Also corrected the links you changed to the title of the excerpt and the isbn but left out the title. --Marty Goldberg 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on MicroGraphicImage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rudget _{Contributions} 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - on talk page. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 15:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted but I've restored it. Please fix the tone of the article and add references so that it does not appear to be original research. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Games By Apollo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Brewcrewer 07:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added "wait" tag as per guidelines. Put discussion on article's talk page. Rewrote the entire entry, provided references, etc. Removed tags as per guidelines. --Marty Goldberg 09:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the consensus of the article's editors. --Jagz (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one of your 21 April 2008 revisions of Bill Ayers you added text describing the Weather Underground as "a group responsible for the bombing murders of several people." This contradicts the main Weather Underground article. Please explain. Joeljunk (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JettaMann.

You recently made changes to the introductory section on Harold Wilson's brand of socialism. I accept that some of these changes were a marked improvement, as they removed an earlier speculative section ("suggesting" Wilson's attitude to traditional left wing approaches). This change is to be applauded. However, I propose that the additional changes -- which almost entirely focused attention on the "social reform" area of the Wilson governments' record, at the expense of his goals on opportunity, technology and growth -- create a confusion and imbalance between what Wilson himself set out to do and what a certain part of his administration (the Home Office largely under Roy Jenkins) undertook. If one reads Wilson's own speeches, e.g., from the 1964 campaign, his own area of focus seems clear. I recognize that you have also asked for citation(s) to back up the article's claim that Wilson personally had little interest in the Jenkins agenda. While I think this is well known, I accept the challenge, and will just need a little more time to find suitable quotes to support this point. Best regards. Nandt1 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thd citation requested has now been supplied. Nandt1 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a little more thought to how to deal with the issues raised, I am now proposing a new reference to the social legislation in the introduction, but separated from the discussion on Wilson's approach to socialism. The larger significance of the "socialism" discussion, that we should try not to lose here, is that attitudes to public ownership have represented a central fissure within the Labour Party almost ever since the Attlee government lost office. Thus Gaitskell tried but failed to change Clause Four of the constitution, opposed by Bevan; much later Foot re-emphasized the left's traditional values; more recently, Blair actually changed the Party's constitution. Where does Wilson fit into this story? The Harold Wilson article argues that he basically fudged the issue -- neither changing the letter of the constitution, nor doing very much to put it into practise. Regards. Nandt1 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~~~~ Marx0728 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed factual content from Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. This is problematic and contested. Please use the talk page to explain your edits. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stop referring to fellow editors as "AGW activists" please. Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is quite enough. You're going to get blocked now. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann, where I've requested that you be blocked and/or topic-banned for your persistent disruptive and abusive behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the multiple warnings for disruptive tendentious editing and personal attacks above, I have blocked you for 10 days, hoping that the discussion on that Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident will by then have calmed down somewhat. You have probably noticed that a community-imposed topic ban for you on that topic area is also on the table, so I would strongly recommmend when you come back from the block, even if you haven't been banned by then, you should tread very carefully in that area or preferably choose to avoid the field altogether, because if you continue behaving like you did you will most likely incur more sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JettaMann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did a bit more research into my ban and now see what happened here. Let me give you my side of these accusations.

The first accusation I want to dismiss is that I have a "history" of "disruptive tendentious editing". I have been a registered Wikipedia editor for many years and made thousands of edits (see my history). In that whole time there are perhaps 6 disagreements/discussions that have cropped up in my talk page, all of them have been friendly, and I have made no attempt to erase this history. Furthermore, the disagreements happened when I was new and didn't understand Wikipedia's many rules at that time. I admit they were mistakes and didn't repeat them. So I hope we can dismiss this accusation once and for all.

The second accusation I want to dismiss is that I have engaged in any personal attacks. In the discussion page for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident I merely proposed three changes to the article: 1. Allow reactions from people other than those who support the AGW theory (Global Warming). Currently it only lists reactions from AGW theory supporters. 2. Make the wording for the Emails sections less POV. Currently it does read as though a AGW apologist wrote this and is attempting damage control from the leaked emails. I merely suggested putting facts only, such as "There were xx emails stolen, and of those xx received significant airtime in the media." 3. I further proposed listing the quotes from email that received significant airtime by the media.

These were all made in good faith and are reasonable suggestions for discussion, but it became immediately clear to me that we had at least three gatekeepers in particular rejected these for no other reason than they didn't like truth and facts. They only wanted the article to be AGW positive, and so rejected any calls for balance or fairness in the article. I had several respected scientists I wanted to quote, and they dismissed them for no rational reason other than they weren't AGW supporters. *Without insulting or attacking them* I pointed out that they are AGW activists, which they are. This is not an insult nor attacking them. Many others in the discussion list arrived at the same conclusion I had. Apparently they can call others "right wing" without problem, but calling them "AGW supporters" is heresy.

Now what these few guys have done is attack me, made unwarranted accusations, and deleted my threads from the discussion list. They also said I was attacking fellow editors, when in fact I said, "I was not calling Wikipedia editors AGW activists, just the AGW activists." As you can see on the ban page, one guy (no idea who he is) even rushed to my defense. This is a good indicator for my case.

Now I think you will agree this is a far cry from "attacking" anyone, it's just stating what many other editors also observed. However, as it turns out this mini-cabal of AGW activists ganged up on me as I now realize to have me banned. I would appreciate it if you would right this wrong.

Decline reason:

plenty of review of this block at this thread on ANI. Your block will expire in a matter of hours. I don't recommend calling folks you disagree with "slanted POV dicks" when your block expires. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, William Connolley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Your edit here adds negative material with dubious sources, while ignoring the ongoing discussion and active RfC on the talk page. And your edit here is a direct violation on WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, they did include proper sources. Every statement added had a proper reference to mainstream websites. This action taken against me by Hipocrite seems rather spurious. JettaMann (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reviewing your contributions, along with your recent lengthy block, I have requested enforcement at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#JettaMann. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#JettaMann, you are banned from the page William Connolley and all related pages, broadly construed, and from interaction with User:William M. Connolley. If you would like to appeal this sanction, please do so at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Your contributions to the rest of the topic area climate change and to Wikipedia continue to be welcomed. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's interesting. All I did was post referenced articles that clearly stated the trouble William Connolley got into at Wikipedia and the proceedings against him on Wikipedia. I believe it resulted in his losing his admin privileges. The fact that merely doing this has resulted in my ban from this article leads me to believe there are some politicized admins here who are banding around certain people and causes, in this case this William Connolley fellow. Posting referenced information to a Wikipedia page has never resulted in a ban before. This is just really strange. JettaMann (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have views on improving the GW article (and that entire suite of articles). I have a concern that there is one way to keep these articles the same and many ways to make improvements. This results in a) division of effort and b) large numbers of editors abandoning the effort.

Some active editors are prepared to show their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. If you would like to encourage this effort then please consider adding your name to the parts you think most important. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good page. JettaMann (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that your recent comments are getting increasingly frusterated. I'm sure everyone would like the atmosphere to become less bleak. Perhaps you should try to reign in your anger at the other "side" - when your anger becomes transparent, it causes people you disagree with to stop working with you, and rather against you. If you need examples, I can certainly provide them, but please consider. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some concerns about you too, Hipocrite. If you need examples I can provide them. JettaMann (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my talk page, please do! I'm always trying to work on my anger issues. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JettaMann (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Can you see why copying exactly the text I wrote on your user page and then writing it on mine might not be the best avenue to foster collegial conversation with others? Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see that the pot calling the kettle black might not be the best avenue to foster collegial conversation with others? I assume you also reprimand everyone equally, especially when they take potshots at others. JettaMann (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm reprimanding anyone, mostly because no one can repirmand anyone on Wikipedia. If you see it that way, please tell me what I could have done to make what was intended helpful advice sound more like helpful advice and less like a reprimand, which it wasn't intended as. I certainly don't advise equally. I don't advise people I think are unsalvagable, or people that I don't think would take kindly to my advice. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reprimand, warn, whatever. Don't obfuscate the issue and stop dragging it out ad infinitum. JettaMann (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not doing either of those! I was providing you advice that if you followed, I suspect you would get more of what you want (your edits to stick in article space), and I'd get more of what I want (net-net; I'd lose some on article space but reading various talk pages would hurt less.) Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Are we done yet or are you going to keep pointlessly dragging this out until you get the last word in? JettaMann (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I told a joke here, would that help or hurt? Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have gotten off on the wrong foot here because I've had a temporary ban before by someone who has had over 500 people banned before (ChrisO). He's basically a serial banner who goads people then bans them in an effort to stifle "dissenting" views. So to me it looked like you were trying to set me up for a similar treatment, but I guess I was wrong. I'll trust you more in the future and try to work more cooperatively. JettaMann (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the part about ChrisO, I'll do the same. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JettaMann, the user Hipocrite just made another wishful concern on my talk page in regards to edits on global warming vandalism. --DuKu (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on your talk page my advice was about labeling edits vandalism that might not be vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my edits I follow Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming closely and often make comments. If you find my comments difficult to deal with then fine but without serious evidence of stalking I would appreciate it if you could retract that statement as it is assuming bad faith on my part with no reason. Polargeo (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm objecting to Polargeo is that several times you have tried to accuse me of making some sort of mistake that wasn't even there. Furthermore, it wasn't even relevant to the discussion, it looks like you were just trying to find fault with anything I said. The fact that you did it to me repeatedly was where my stalking accusation came from. Please read this Wikipedia etiquette section about hounding. [4] I hope I'm wrong with this accusation, so I am removing it, but I'll take action if I see this type of behavior from you a third time. JettaMann (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I read your comment, I read the two comments before it, if I didn't read some relevent comment further up the page and was correcting something I shouldn't have been correcting then I am sorry. You will see I make comments on the page to all sorts of people. If I happen to have issues with their statments I will say so. It is a functioning and generally civil talkpage which is amazing for what it is about. I could have gone and reported your incivility but I didn't, I placed a message on your talkpage which I think is the mature way of doing things. I will never report an editor for minor incivility because in my opinion that is one of the most unconstructive things that can be done on wikipedia. You will get a lot more cooperation from editors like myself if you don't throw accusations at them. I can see that you genuinely wish to improve wikipedia and even if I often disagree with you and we get into irritating misunderstandings that should not be a reason to stop working in a positive manner. I am not another WMC, even though I respect his knowledge on climate change I don't always agree with him :). I have not stated whether the graphs should be in or out. That is because I actually don't have a strong opinion. I don't disagree with their inclusion but I also would have little worry if they were removed. I may comment on aspects within the debate but I will continue to neither fully support nor fully object to their inclusion. I strongly believe the "List of scientists..." article should exist as a navigational aid and I am equally irritated by attempts from editors from either side of the AGW fence who are trying to advance their views. Polargeo (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user you mentioned tries to game Wikipedia changes any way he can rather than respecting the spirit of Wikipedia rules. It only makes me want to try harder to bring balance to some of these pages. Thanks for your comments. I'll try to work better with you in the future. JettaMann (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#No English requirement Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your comments to Talk:Mark Whitacre per WP:BLP. While the article does have problems, and some of your points might be worth addressing, overall your comments are inappropriate. Please concentrate on productive discussions about how to improve article. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were meant in the clinical sense of the word, as described by Dr. Robert Hare. If a subject is missing an arm or has a disease, it isn't really an insult to say in his Wiki biography. I didn't see too much literature about him being a psychopath, other than blog entries, so I'll refrain from this unless a definitive diagnosis by an expert such as Dr. Robert Hare appears in the literature. I've added some more comments to the talk section that do not deal with the psychopathic aspects. JettaMann (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"an anti-freedom ideology that murdered and killed more people in the 20th century than any other political ideology, including German National Socialism" = Randism. Just saying. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When material is presented in quotation marks, the expectation is that it's a verbatim excerpt from the source. Here you edit and alter a direct quote, so that it's no longer a direct quote from the source. That's a bad editing practice; please don't do it. Moreover, it's particularly bad form to make free-floating accusations of malice (as in your edit summary) while tampering with a direct quote. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. – Lionel (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the removal of the Romney neologism on the Seamus page. While I understand the potential for material like this to be considered a smear, there is some history and precedent behind this. There is an article called campaign for "santorum" neologism that has existed since 2006. Early this year, there was a move to create a similiar article for romney neologism. A decision was made that the romney neologism did not have the same level of media publicity as the santorum neologism, but that it should be part of another article. A decision was made that because the neologism was connected to the 1983 road trip, it would be included in the Seamus article. There is some discussion of this on the Talk:Seamus (dog) page under 'merge of new material'. Bearian was the administrator who proposed this solution. Debbie W. 21:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:Media Matters for America. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the link I provided to The Daily Caller on the talk page? a) It's on the talk page, not on a main page. It is perfectly valid to float these ideas on the talk page with whatever references I happen to have on hand at the moment. b) The Daily Caller is not poorly referenced. JettaMann (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JettaMann. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JettaMann. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One admin has been indiscriminately blocking respected editors who have edited Talk:Mark Dice. Please make sure to follow our policies accurately, especially WP:TALK, because he might block you for a minor violation. Other admins may agree with his behavior according to the thread at WP:AN, but we'll see where this goes. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 18:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ant edit requests need to be based upon solid policy-based arguments, not asking nicely. Please also read wp:talk. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]