User talk:Jeanpetr

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed and appreciated your edits at Human brain. You may, perhaps, also be interested in WP:WikiProject Neuroscience. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Barrel cortex has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. allen四names 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See edit summaryJeanpetr (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaponics

Hi Jeanpetr, thanks for your corrections on aquaponics. I was a bit unsure about deleting the bit about poverty in the introduction; the original text contained an even more subjective text using phrases such as "aquaponics renaissance"; I wholly agree to deleting it. I am in the process of translating the article into Dutch, but since the English article is in dire need of improvement (Barbados... need I say more?) I'm combining it with wikification. I would highly appreciate your continued collaboration so we can clean up this article together in the next few days. Together with a consultant on aquaponics I should be able to expand the sections on aquaponics in Europe, Africa and Asia at some point. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finished correcting the aquaponics page, hopefully to your liking. I might help at a later stage with adding references when I have the time to read through some articles. Just one question; how do you feel about the two (commercial) "training" links in the External links section? Consistent with the rest of the page, I think we had better remove them. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job yourself! I made a few minor corrections. The only change in actual content is that I rephrased a sentence because it suggested plants cannot take up ammonium. They actually can in smaller doses, but nitrates can immediately be metabolized. Now I am thinking about the following: throughout the "function" section, we spend a lot of attention on retaining the balance in the symbiosis by (a) filtering out toxic waste, (b) countering acidification, (c) stabilizing plant uptake through harvesting technique, and (d) stabilizing fish excretion through replacement. What if we create a separate subsection of "function" called "Balancing the symbiosis" or something of the like? --Eddyspeeder (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo, we got a page important enough for vandalism! =P User:Gnowor made a good call deleting a (superficially) questionable statement that is unreferenced, but you did one better by restoring it with a reference. Thanks for keeping an eye out on it! Eddyspeeder (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As said in the Aquaponics page comments, reverting the large edit was good judgment. I now incorporated some information from that edit in the existing text. Perhaps you can have a look at it and check whether I took the right approach? Something else I wanted to run by you is that the external links section has been reduced to a very meagre collection of links, with (in my opinion) an overly large emphasis on Barrel-Ponics, even though that system is only mentioned briefly in the section on United States without further explanation. So my proposal is to remove all Barrel-Ponics external links, and optionally just delete the external links section altogether. What do you think? Thanks for your continued involvement with the article. -- Eddyspeeder (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egg

Hi, I just wanted to recommend that you take a look at WP:OR, which is Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. The extra claim you want to add to Egg (food), while interesting, is strictly original research, as it is your analysis of what the source says. Unless you have a legitimate source that states that the study in question was lacking, you cannot add that sentence to the Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 23:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 15:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Silverstone

Hi Jeanpetr. I've gone ahead and undone your revert per the talk page discussion, the BLPN discussion, WP:VOTE, WP:DR, and WP:CON. I believe I summarized the rationale for inclusion properly - editors simply are ignoring (or don't understand) the relevant policies and how they apply, or they believe that some day there will be more published on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever someone disagrees with you, you always post this sort of nonsense on their talk page. Keep it on the talk page of the article in question. There is already plenty published on the topic, and you are the only one ignoring or failing to "understand the relevant policies", you constantly tossing out links to different policy and guideline pages, as though that somehow makes your case for you, and ignoring the discussion claiming you proved your case when you haven't. Dream Focus 09:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies/guidelines are not nonsense.

Consensus is not changed by ignoring other editors commentary and the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the WP:NOTDIARY/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER concerns. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premastication

Now that you're getting a small bit of exposure to some of the policies relevant to mentions of living people in Wikipedia as well as consensus-building, how about you rewrite your contribution to Premastication so it is not original research and a BLP violation? Normally, I'd do so, but I've very concerned about your behavior related to this topic and don't want it escalating it further. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed it while waiting for your further responses. In terms of Silverstone's life, we've no consensus. In terms of the entire history of premastication, it's undue weight and trivia. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and undone your revert per BLP. Please watch your edit-summaries as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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.

History and culture of breastfeeding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chatelaine

Stanley Lewis (sculptor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Agony and the Ecstasy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Premastication

Hi. I have carried out a review of the article with appropriate comments indicating things that need to be completed. The article is currently on-hold until either these changes are complete, in which case I will pass the article, or a period of 7 days has passed, after which it will be failed. I should say that although there are only two criteria under which the article falls short, these are fairly significant and will require substantial work. Having said that, I look forward to your changes and will make ongoing feedback as they are carried out! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments and further issues discovered, although the changes you made were very successful in covering the omissions on the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes are substantial and appreciated. I will admit to being skeptical as to whether or not the article could be improved enough within this review or whether it should come back and have another try; it seems it might be good enough to pass soon. Only one thing: would you be able to copy over your log of changes on my talk page to the GA review. For procedure's sake, it then shows how you've responded to the changes and will explain why I make my decision at the end. Added a few more things, but thanks so far! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, it's a very worthy topic to take to GAN and you did well to make changes as successfully and quickly as you did (made my work a lot easier!). Oh, the only thing left for me to say is that I would encourage you to carry out a review of another GAN. Thanks. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hi Jeanpetr, This is regarding the page for attorney Juan J Dominguez. I am in the process of fixing the page to follow suit and discuss accurate information. I dont understand why you consistently revert the page and make it a point to include a large section on "tellez v dole" and "after tellez v dole". It comes off as very accusatory and my understanding of wikipedia is it is supposed to be biographical and factual. The case is referenced in the content i am putting up as the OTHER cases are referenced, as they should be. What you are doing is begining to cross the line of immoral and I feel i may have to contact the wikimedia foundation to discuss in detail. Please stop. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.37.10 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To who ever this is, I do agree that wikipedia is supposed to be biographical and factual. But the factual details of his participation of the case should not be blotted out on the basis of what you state as "accusatory" or "cross the line of immoral". Perhaps the cited material does not paint him in the best of light, but that does not mean that J Dominguez did not participate in them or that his peers did not pass judgement on him. I would argue that the facts of the case and their consequences speak for themselves; whomever reads it can, and has the right to, draw their own conclusions. While I applaude the edits that seek to round out J Dominguez's biographical and background information, the "hidden" deletion, deliberate or not, obfuscates or conceals informations relavant to describing J Dominguez as a person. Some would say, if anything, that these new edits crosses that "line of immoral" that you speak of and may be seem as an attempt to white-wash or "despot" his wikipedia article. If you have concerns regarding my actions in reinserting the section regarding Tellez v Dole, please do contact the Wikimedia foundation. Until then I will edit this article following the guidelines of wikipedia and seek to retain this information. Jeanpetr (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon Jean, While i appreciate your stance on the matter the facts are clear. Your additions to the attorneys page are not abiding the Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons found here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.

First and in my opinion the biggest offense by your addition is NPOV: Which states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." The content you've posted about the tellez vs dole case are in fact opinionated and not supported by documented, verifiable sources.

Which takes me to the next offense: Verifiability, Which states "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Whether you believe the statements in your content to be true or not, they are not verifiable, therefore not following guidelines/policies.

My statements above do not cite united states law, they strictly reference wikipedia policy of which is widely governed by a variety of relevant United States laws. I await your response.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear whomever you are (Associates of J Dominguez perhaps?), Are you sure you were reading Wikipedia:Core content policies or do you not understand their explaination?

It's NPOV because I do not state anything untrue or try to prevent reliable information from being added to the page. Note, the cite edits of 38.98.37.10 (you or you associate maybe) round out the article nicely and were thus RETAINED. Heck I even overlook those ungly uncited additions, which I could technically delete without violating wikipedia policy.
It's Verifiable because it's ALL CITED with the links in the cititations for the lazy. If you click on those lovely links, it will lead you to a realiable source supporting the statement. Want more info? Remember, google's search engine is very useful.
It is NOT Original research because the cited sources directly support the statements, which do not contain my own opinions or involve me drawing my own conclusions. Rather, it is the opinions and research of those reliable sources that I draw from.

If you do have such grave issues with my added content, which I believe is completely inline with wikipedia policy, please just contact the wikipedia Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes instead of posturing, chest-thumping, and then deleting some of them. I'm more than happy to meet you in the middle, and fact is, I want to you give you the benefit of doubt on your good faith and intentions. But if your "middle" involves the removal of any information you deem "unglamorous" about J Dominguez, then I'm not sure I can help you. If you are truly interested in making the article better instead of doing what appears to me to as white-washing, include the Tellez v Dole case information. Then, edit and structure this such that it is is well integrated into the article. I look forwards to working with you. Jeanpetr (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Jean, I unfortunately dont feel your addition is in line with Wikipedia policies, while i understand the information in itself can be verified online as there are other "sources" online that discuss it, it is in face not, factual. The discussion of the case should be one based on Facts and given the nature of the legal industry documented information. Not opinionated "blog" style content. There is a possibility we can meet somewhere in the middle but the format this page is to follow does not speak on any one case more than another. This is a biographical page on the Attorney, NOT the case. I am going to need to make changes but do not want to have this back and fourth. If you feel we can meet happily in the middle and make this page biographically accurate, great. This is however not a page meant for the discussion of 1 case, it is meant for factual information on the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to semi-legal and journalistic works of major newpapers as not factual and "blog-style", than I would love to contest your added uncited content for it's factuality. Since we cannot reconcile our differencence in opinion, we should get editor assitance to resolve this issue. Until then, you should CITE your sources for the content that you or your associates have added to the article or risk it's deletion. As well, please get a wikipedia account and sign your comments. Jeanpetr (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance has been requested [[1]]. Meanwhile please give the URLs and the full reference on the cases which you have only cited as [ XXX v. YYY case document]. This is insufficient information for a citation. Jeanpetr (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To 198.185.18.207 or 38.98.37.10 or associates of J. Dominguez, please comment directly in Talk:Juan Dominguez (lawyer)#Concerns stemming from removal of information regarding Tellez v Dole since the discussion is about the article itself. Jeanpetr (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blues

You wrote about the origin of Blues --> here. Do you have an answer here ? --Ohrnwuzler (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Butter tart may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to modify Kawartha Lakes' "Butter Tart Tour" to "Kawarthas Northumberland Butter Tart Tour".<ref>{{citation|first=Kirk |last=Dickson |title=Wellington North In Butter Tart Taste Off |date=August

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Hot Chicken sandwich

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hot Chicken sandwich, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]