User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/November

Sourcing
Hi Jayen466. We may disagree over your proposal at MEDRS but I know your intentions are good. I had a look at the discussion at WP:V. It is over-long so I skimmed it. I'm impressed by your contributions there. However, for various reasons, I won't be joining in that discussion. Cheers, Colin°Talk 20:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Colin, it's kind of you to say so. -- JN 466  21:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sex, Slander, and Salvation MOS Question
I just Created the Article and was Unsure how to cover the Contents section, Whether I should just list the Chapter and Authors or do a short summary of Each? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article. I would have thought listing the chapters and authors would be a good idea; as for describing their content, secondary sources would be preferred, but I believe it's also permissible to write a short synopsis yourself based on the primary source, just as it is for TV series, films and games. -- JN 466  23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See thats what I thought, I think as long as I stick to one or two sentences for each and cover the topic chapter supplementing with the reviews I think it can be done. I usually utilize a FA or GA for reference point such things, but no edited academic books seem to have gotten that status from looking around. Thanx of the copy editing btw The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your input
Thanks for your comments at RSN regarding the book Integrative Cardiology as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
Jayen, I appreciate that you feel strongly about the issues we've recently been discussing, but please be careful not to canvass. This looks very much like votestacking, whereas your note here is clearly biased and therefore a problem of campaigning. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted; though please bear in mind that these comments were made out in the open, rather than by e-mail, and on two of the most widely watched user talk pages in the project. -- JN 466  15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention "stealth" canvassing. The openness of communication has no bearing on votestacking (which deals with cherry-picking participants to notify) or campaigning (which deals with advancing your arguments in notice). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, MRG. I apologise, and will endeavour to present my concerns in a more neutral fashion and at more neutral venues in future, even if I do care strongly about the points at issue. -- JN 466  15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
I am unfamiliar with the tags and templates used here and I was wondering if you could help me understand what this entry is all about? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Werner_Erhard&diff=389602695&oldid=389602275 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLKLewis (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It relates to Wikipedia's internal quality rating system. The edit downgraded the quality assessment by one level, from C-Class to Start-Class. -- JN 466  16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note that you can sign and date your talk page posts by placing four tildes ( ~ ) after them. When you've finished writing a talk page reply, look for Sign your posts on talk pages below your edit window, and click on the four tildes you see there. This will automatically insert the tildes at the cursor position in the edit window. When you save your post, the four tildes are turned into your signature, along with a timestamp.  JN 466  16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the information. I appreciate it. --MLKLewis (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Request comments
I request your comments about the notability of Religious typification section on Jehovah's Witness talk page. Thank you--Logical Thinker: talk 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have a look when I have a mo; please bear with me. -- JN 466  06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
It seems like wherever Cirt goes, you're there too. You appear to be following him to articles, such as Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, and to be appearing anytime there's a post by or about him, like these recent noticeboard threads:. If I were him I'd be feeling harassed. "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work... " WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I suggest that you give him more space in the future.  Will Beback   talk    01:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just drop it, Will. I could equally point to many occasions, including those you linked above plus arbitration cases and RSN threads, where you and Cirt turn up together speaking in unison, or where you turn up to make a point of opposing me. What was THF's COIN thread to you? Daryl's Wine bar, Kenneth Dickson, List of Scientologists, David Miscavige, and this present case, are all articles in the Scientology topic area, which I haven't seen you work in, but both Cirt and I do regularly work in. And if I see Cirt writing a clearly non-neutral Scientology-related piece like Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant or Kenneth Dickson, or violating BLP as she did in List of Scientologists for example, or, for that matter, claiming that a cardiology book by McGraw Hill does not meet WP:RS to help you over in the TM topic area, I will call it out.
 * There is a reason this is a collaborative project: so that different POVs are represented and we arrive at a neutral article. Besides, I respect Cirt, and if she put you up to this, you can tell her that she can't have it both ways: I have supported her plenty of times against other editors when she was right, and I have frequently expressed my appreciation for her work. She in turn has explicitly pointed out my appreciation and/or support of her position to other editors she was in dispute with, including on Jimbo's talk page. But no two editors agree all the time, and if you should observe an occasional disagreement between Cirt and me, perhaps you could think about whether it is really necessary for you to leave whatever it is you are working on just to make a perfectly predictable comment. -- JN 466  02:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I touched a nerve. You can accuse me of ignorance, but there's nothing in Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant that marks it as a Scientology-related article nor is it discussed on the talk page. The connection, if any, is very obscure. Cirt has written and promoted more articles to FA than both of use combined. That indicates an ability to comply with the most stringent interpretations of NPOV, and other policies and guidelines. It's an enviable record.
 * I've been following THF's career on Wikipedia for more than three years. What's the difference between "following" and "hounding"? It's a matter of degree. He edits many topics and posts to many administrative threads. I don't notice or comment on most of them. I pay a bit of attention to his edits when they show up on my watchlist, and I run into him here and there. We're always collegial and I respect him as an editor and a contributor, even when we butt heads. Maybe that's the kind of relationship that you and Cirt should aim for. I'd hate for either of you to end up in an ArbCom-type mess.    Will Beback    talk    11:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Will. For the Scientology connection of Daryl's, you'd have to read through Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant. -- JN  466  21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)