Welcome to Wikipedia, Jeannedeba! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing ((helpme)) at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pope Benedict XVI. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Note: BLP concerns and vandalism reverts are exempt from this rule, but being "right" is not sufficient reason to edit war. Please be careful --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped reverting the vandalism for now, hoping someone else could take care of it. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you aren't exactly helping your case by using phrases like "British nutjob". I understand this is an emotional issue, but please try to remain neutral (i.e. use neutral phrasing) on the talk page as well as in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop reverting. I will be forced to block you if this continues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to warn Jeannedeba about 3rr as well. BUT he has a leg to stand on. If an edit is controversial, then the proper form to preserve is the less inflamatory one. You yourself acknowledge that the edit is controversial, which is why I left a warning on your page. If an edit is controversial and designed to inflame the situation, which your edit does, then the version without it is the one that should be on the page unless consenssu can be gathered to keep it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that Rutger has decided to take us to Ani. HE also opened a Wikiquette case, but I closed that as redundant to the ANI case.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, before you make statements like "stable for years" you might want to check the article history... heck even the talk page. There is still discussion on the active talk page for the Pope concerning that section. It has NOT been stable for years... months maybe, but not years.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version from 20 April 2008[1] and here is the version from 20 October 2006[2]. As you can see, it has indeed been stable for many, many years, except that one important fact has at some point (very recently it seems) been deleted (membership being required by law). As for the recent discussion, I don't see any consensus to change it to anything like the wording unilaterally introduced by Peter Ian Staker. The user is question also has a very problematic history of POV pushing in the article and most of his edits have been reverted as unproductive by other users. He makes edits like this[3]. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the tool and I missed one since you didn't say "rv". You are reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jeannedeba_reported_by_Peter_Ian_Staker_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29

Sorry. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For personal attacks and BLP vios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#3rr_and_BLP_vios_by_Jeannie

Hello, Jeannedeba, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, and come to the Project talk page, where you can join in our discussions about Catholic-related articles. It is also a good place to come if you have any questions. Feel free to discuss anything on the project, but please remember to sign all your comments, and help us to make all of the many Catholicism-related articles much better. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Xandar 20:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeanne, I was just working on the Benedict article and noticed that many of the references that you are adding are just links to pages. If you could, could you start using the citeweb template wp:citeweb?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your talk page comments that you have strong views on the subject of the article. Per WP:COI and WP:TRUTH this means you have to take special care when editing the article. Specifically you should avoid making reverts like this one; the policy WP:BLP has been invoked, and this trumps all other policies. Rather than edit warring to your preferred version, please continue to discuss in talk, in a more moderate tone if that is possible. Thanks and let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Assange, Jeannedeba also wrote: "Swedish police issued an arrest warrant yesterday, but apparently he has not been caught yet. As such, he is a fugitive and belongs in the categories Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges and Fugitives wanted by Sweden". So this "editor" is definitely out to malign Assange. No news reports called Assange a fugitive. In fact, in less than a single day, the Swedish govt found no basis for the claims against Assange. Jebba (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this aren't ok. You don't know me and so you have no idea how much I hate blocking established editors for BLP violation. Nevertheless, if I see you make another negative and unsourced edit on that page, that's what we'll be looking at. Your call. --John (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources clearly establish that he studied but didn't earn a degree. His official Wikileaks biography only states that the "attended" various universities and makes no claims of any degrees[4]. The article already established that "He has been described as being largely self-taught". This has nothing to do with BLP. Threats like that are totally unacceptable, and this was a perfectly valid edit that did not in any way violate any policy. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like being threatened with blocks, you need to improve your editing and your understanding of fundamental polices. Here's a clue; it's a leap from "makes no claims of any degrees" to stating "he didn't graduate". Do you understand? --John (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edit conflicted my warning about civility on the talk page.. and the edit conflict was this. Which is definitely a step too far. Please discuss collegially. I recommend adopting an objective and dispassionate stance - as I alluded to on the talk page, I very much dislike the guy, but that shouldn't affect how I treat the article. If you cannot be civil next time I will take it to WP:WQA --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm not the one being incivil. I answer people in the same tone they talk to me in, in this case used the exact same words as your friend Nymf used against me. I think WP:WQA is not interested in fake "reports" by participants in a content dispute on the person who was actually verbally abused by your side in the dispute in question. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not overly interested in excuses, sorry. But you will be civil please. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who needs to make up excuses. Please stop bullying me. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add my voice to the above. I found your comments on the article talk page lacking in civility towards me during our exchange. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV warriors have been trying to get the word "Rape" into a header for the last few months. This was rejected a couple of times on the talk page. I strongly encourage you to remove it. And try to be more civil in your edit summaries. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply remove the entire heading, thus hiding the sub section on the Swedish investigation in the table of contents. Each two, separate investigations have their own sub sections, and the Swedish one needs to have a heading as long as the other, unrelated US investigation has its own, for the heading hierarchy to make sense. I have no knowledge of previous headings, but obviously, things have changed since the Interpol arrest warrat was issued. Wikipedia is not censored, and the investigation is related to charges of rape. But the exact wording isn't the central issue here, it's the hierarchy of headings. Jeannedeba (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Still no logical argument for calling it "Rape investigation". To be clear; the word Rape is highly loaded and clearly intended to be negative - we strongly avoid such headings. Secondly; it doesn't need a heading there, because it is the start of a second level section, so that is fine. We worked really really hard to get a decent neutral heading there. Not Censored is a smokescreen; the relevant policy is a BLP guide. I am removing it again under BLP reasons, please get consensus on the talk page before re-adding --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you compromised the wording, that's better. However I still dispute the need for a header there. There should really be content between L2 and L3 headers. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of "a subhead that accurately describes [the Swedish case]" was previously pointed out by SlimVirgin on the article talk page, and has not been contested. "2010 legal difficulties and charges" serves as an umbrella heading for very different and totally unrelated legal troubles. Either these two need their own subheadings, or we must remove all the subheadings (but there is no reason not to have subheadings). It's not logic or appropriate to describe the Swedish case under the main heading "2010 legal difficulties and charges" and then the US/Australian investigation under a subheading, text included directly under a main heading needs to be relevant to all content of the section. Not having an appropriate subheading for the first investigation also hides the entire section from the table of contents (as the umbrella/main heading is not a description of that case), and makes it look, from the TOC, as the US/Australian investigation is the only investigation covered by the section. Jeannedeba (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we worked hard to get a good L2 header that covered neutrally the whole section. There is no requirement for everything to have its own sub header below that. Generally speaking we use sub-headers to split new topic chronologically. From a MOS point of view heading following heading (i.e. with no text between) is discouraged as it looks bad :) Sub headings are there to logically split content into manageable chunks, the Swedish sub heading is entirely redundant --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. There is a requirement to have a logic article structure. Your proposed article structure is not logic and it is misleading. "There is no requirement for everything to have its own sub header below that" is nothing but a strawman, I said no such thing. What you "worked out" before in regard to article headings is of little relevance now, as the need for subheadings arose very recently due to the recent developments. The subheadings were included after other users suggested it on the talk page. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my newly proposed headings made them two separate damned sections - which covers all your concerns. You're incorrect on all counts above, please take a moment to step back from the topic and re-assess. You're, frankly, making a right mess of those headings--Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are making a mess. I'm cleaning up after you. You made the recent WikiLeaks leak part of the charges in Sweden. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear; I feel the heading is deliberately designed to push a POV and will continue to resist it strongly. Currently going to the WP:BLP/N --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. It's a factual, neutrally worded summary of the contents of the section. The problem here is the attempts to censor what Assange's friends don't like. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I would point out, again, that I dislike Assange. And do not accuse others of censorship, it's a common nonsense argument. I've raised this as [{WP:BLP/N]] for wider input. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rather big leap and WP:OR to use those sources to claim that someone who is wanted is automatically a fugitive. Someone wanted can be a fugitive, but being wanted does not automatically make you a fugitive. See the difference? Nymf _hideliho! 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are just making up nonsense, you haven't cited any sources to back it up, and it's your original research, nothing else. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't cited any sources that backs up your claim. The WP:BURDEN is on you. Where in those sources that you referenced does it say that someone who is wanted is automatically a fugitive, or that it's pretty much the same thing ("...also known as")? Nymf _hideliho! 22:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this nonsense, just drop it. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dropping this. If you don't want to deal with it, then don't edit the article. Feel free to self-revert yourself. Nymf _hideliho! 22:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

I am not really involved in the issues, so I will just note that the 3RR case you presented on ANI was correct, but you did not present the right diffs. The first diff was NOv 26, but there is an additional diff on Nov 29. So it is 3RR breach, but you need to present it right. History2007 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you should read WP:BOOMERANG first. Trio The Punch (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She has already presented the case, so no difference to her in any case. And I am not involved on the article in question. So, no relevance. So WP:GO, end of story. History2007 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may think it is a game if you are gaming the system (tagteaming to evade 3rr) but in reality we are trying to write an encyclopaedia here. Please go play somewhere else. Trio The Punch (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors agreeing that you are violating BLP isn't tag team editing.Marauder40 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, his ticket got punched now - 4 times. So the ping-pong is over for now. History2007 (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is not the way we delete articles. You would need to see WP:AfD or WP:PROD. Simply blanking an article is not typically helpful, especially when it is linked in a large number of other places, including the main Humanism template. I also see that you changed the main humanism template here, which converted it from a vertical navbox into a horizontal table. Discussion before a major change like that is generally a good idea. However, the bigger issue is that the humanism template is transcluded on a large number of pages (see here), and so making a major formatting change to the template caused problems across all those articles. If you want to make a major change to a template, the usual process is to get the template working in your userspace the way you want first, then to change every article using the template, then update the actual template article. Needless to say, I reverted that change, but if you'd like to update the Humanism template in the future, feel free to open discussion on the talk page and I can walk you through the process more. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, tags are not meant as a "negative mark" to an article. Tags are meant to spur discussion so that a problem can be fixed. When you added a POV and Accuracy tag to the Outline of humanism article, you did not start discussion on the talk page, so it will not be clear to any other editor why there is a problem with the article or how to resolve it. See Template:POV#When to use.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Jeannedeba! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of 3,922 characters without any discussion isn't a best practice. Xx236 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your edit "Polish nationalistic politician" is POV. What about German nationalism of Erika Steinbach and some German politicians?Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Władysław Bartoszewski is an Auschwitz survivor. You have removed his opinion.Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's important and sourced:

On September 2010, Steinbach resigned from the leadership of the CDU/CSU after controversial statements about the German invasion of Poland. Steinbach, in support of other members of her expellee organization, claimed that Hitler's attack on Poland was just a response to Poland's mobilization. According to mainstream historians, Poland's mobilization was itself a response to Hitler's armament program and threat of war from Germany. The statements angered Germany's Central Council of Jews.^[1]

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2013 (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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]