User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2011/December

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Jimbo, that means a lot. :) -- J N  466  11:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad
Please could you stop removing images from the Muhammad because it is clear that there is not a consensus in favour of doing this and there are ongoing discussions about it. Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd care to check the discussion page, you'd see that this actually does have talk page support, and that a lot of work went into crafting this compromise proposal. For further enquiries, please check with User:Resolute, whose proposal this is. Cheers, -- J N  466  20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what I see there is you claiming to have reviewed the discussion and found a consensus in your favour, then that being disputed by another editor, then you rushing off to make the change. --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I announced my intention of making the edit yesterday, and gave it the best part of 24 hours before making it. You are editing against consensus on a talk page that you have never even contributed to. -- J N  466  20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm about to. Please hold on to your horses. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free, but be aware that this edit does not delete all such images, as you appear to think, but presents a smaller number of them (3 instead of 5) in a way that makes more encyclopedic sense. The discussions leading to this, including on Jimbo's talk page, were really quite extensive, and if you want to make controversial edits, it would be better if you followed them and kept up to speed. -- J N  466  20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Remi Kanazi
Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Īhām
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for a new account
Jayen, it is Bryan, I made myself a new account and have forgotten the password for it. I failed to hook the new one up to my email before I left Wikipedia. I made a new account just in case I decided to return. Could you create an account for me? As last time I checked you had the account creator privilege. Would you mind making a new account with roughly the same thing? My new name is User:SystemsTheorist; could you call the new account User:Systems Theorist? You can verify this through my private email which you have. It will take me a few days to get back to you though. Do wait until we have communicated through email to set it up just to be safe. 150.182.210.231 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll request access to the account creation interface in the meantime. -- J N  466  07:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am declining your request for the use of the Account creation project interface as it is not required to create another account, and neither is your account creator flag (Which you were supposed to talk to User:Courcelles when done with it, as acknowledged here). Would you object if I removed it?
 * @SystemsTheorist are you looking to create a Doppelganger account? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  08:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, DQ. I've been using the flag to create and maintain editnotices for lists that have BLP impact (listed at User:Jayen466/BLP_Edit_notices). -- J N  466  12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I though it was a one time thing, and that's what it looked like at the time. Carry on :) (Though ACC is still not needed, and therefore not granted for the record). -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update
Hi Jayen466,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!


 * 1) ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
 * 2) CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Maryana. I'll have a look. Best, -- J N  466  02:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia page on me
Thank you for your help yesterday. i was really shocked by this whole thing and don't want anything more to do with Wikipedia. i'm amaazed that such libeous and incorrect material could sail through and be added to an article about me and also that Wipipedia editors would repeatedly re-insert libelous and irrelevant material. it could be very damaging to me. i would like the page deleted as fast as possible, and i don't want it re-written or edited. i don't want to have to constantly watch the page to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. i don't know too much about all the Wikipedia protocols and they can be very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita gross (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Another editor has nominated the page for deletion, in line with your request; the deletion discussion is at Articles_for_deletion/Rita_M._Gross. Best wishes, -- J N  466  02:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to be said that this sort of thing seems to be an inherent weakness of this project:     . For all the good and useful content Wikipedia has, its BLPs remain excessively vulnerable, and sometimes do serious real-life damage. -- J  N  466  06:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bolton Brown
Hello! Your submission of Bolton Brown at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Interior (Talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bolton Brown
A Merry Christmas - and other winter festivities Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't want to muddle the arbcom page
I just wanted to make my point here, and not muddle the arbcom page with the inevitable discussion. No, Muslim scholars are not reliable sources about Muhammad, no more than they or Christian scholars are reliable sources about Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Anyone that believes someone to be a prophet, divine, or blessed by supernatural beings is capable of being disinterested or objective about the factual nature of the person's life or historical impact. It's an insurmountable obstacle.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So someone like Omid Safi, who is the co-chair of the steering committee for the Study of Islam at the American Academy of Religion, works at Harvard and is published by Oxford University Press, is not a reliable source in Wikipedia because he's Muslim? -- J N  466  13:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable source about Islam, not about Muhammad as a historical figure. Two separate things (and two separate articles, for that matter). I noticed that you consider this discussion to be "evidence", BTW. Evidence of what, precisely?&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)