User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2011/July

Wiktionary "several"
The long standing definition at Wictionary was changed from "more than two or three" to "more than one" on 18 May 2011 by a new IP. I've restored the "more than two" meaning that has stood since the entry's creation in 2004. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- J N  466  12:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification
Well Jayen466, here we are a place I never wanted to be but the reality is this has been going on too long and it needs to stop once and for all. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 08:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Standard notification
Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't, but it's all good as far as I am concerned. I was not referring to you in any of my comments about shenanigans at NARM. The troublesome editors are often single purpose, and appear to be new. These editors do a grave disservice because their noise tends to shield an editor like Cirt from legitimate criticisms and scrutiny. You will notice that I did quite the opposite of what Cirt wanted at Santorum (neologism). I am not any way in the habit of backing up Cirt. It just happens that often he's right, though sometimes he's wrong. And I dislike the sock campaigns that have been been related to the Landmark Education and Church of Scientology articles and turned personal against Cirt. Jehochman Talk 18:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Jehochman, thanks for that. I appreciate it. -- J N  466  18:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * diffs of jehochman's involvement with cirt, not nrms but cirt specifically a times when cirt is challenged or is challenging others, are forthcoming when I get to a computer later today. I disgree completely with his charcterization above.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- J N  466  18:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Marimba Ani
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A medal for you - Param Vir Chakra

 * Thanks, Zuggernaut. :) Hope you are well. -- J N  466  14:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Jayen466, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Jayen466. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on ArbCom case
Jayen, I suspect that if/when the Cirt ArbCom case gets opened, you're going to want to introduce evidence along the lines of the RfC/U. I thought I'd drop you a few suggestions for making that case. I think you might want to try laying out your case like this: I'd recommend trying to keep it short; don't go overboard finding examples to point out with prose. I think you could argue your case with the Purple article, the political articles, santorum, and maybe one other totally unrelated one if you had one. You might then include a table with two columns: "Editing issue" and "Diffs", and just stick the diffs in there without comment, to show the scope of each issue. (Just make sure they're all solid examples. Less can be more...)
 * 1) Start with the Tom Cruise Purple article. It's short, it doesn't have a ton of references, but it introduces the key concepts of your complaint regarding Cirt's editing decisions.  It makes a good intro.
 * 2) Walk the reader through the problems. Concentrate on treating them as if this were any Joe Editor: these would be problems if anyone did them.
 * 3) Then briefly show how each type of problem can be found in more than one article edited.  Don't pay particular attention to the nature of the article; show that the behavior is repeated and is still going on.
 * 4) Then you can point out that on top of that, Cirt has previously been heavily involved in Scientology editing, that there were claims of bias there, the implications of ARBSCI on that, etc., and how that further colors the case laid out.

Most importantly, I'd avoid making any suppositions about motive, and question every adjective used to make sure it's neutral. Let the evidence tell the tale; don't oversell it or underestimate the audience's ability to draw a conclusion.

I think that, by using a structure like that, it might be easier for others to see the valid points you're trying to make. It would've been easier for me, anyway. It might also help prevent undue drama. Hope it helps. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Macwhiz. I appreciate the good-will, and the advice, and will do my best to follow it. Unfortunately, I let the situation get to me—it's been going on for so long—and that frustration coloured the way I wrote the RfC/U. Regards. -- J N  466  21:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I had a feeling it was something like that.  I still may not agree with you on all the particulars, but I've never assumed you didn't feel you had good reasons for what you did.  I'm still idealist enough to think this place works best if we all lend each other a hand where we can. :) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As far as I am concerned, you agree with all the essential points I made. The rest are minor. If I had been able to write the RfC/U in such a way that that had been your first response, I would have done a better job. At the same time, I am aware that it took you several days of looking at the articles and sources to come to that conclusion. That is in the nature of things. I am still convinced that many of the people who expressed the view that there was no problem never looked at the evidence at all. For example, see this conversation. The editor says he doesn't know what I mean when I speak of an "adult entertainment company that a free-speech lawyer has a significant business interest in". It was the very first point in the RfC/U. He clearly never read it. Yet he voted. Can you imagine how that makes me feel? Hopeless. -- J N  466  01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed Miliband
Hi Jayen. We are looking for a GA reviewer to take this BLP on. A GA nominee template is waiting on the talkpage since eighteen days now (no pressure/no deadline)..Talk:Ed Miliband - I think you could do it, or could you suggest someone please, no one has taken the request up so far, - no pressure..As I understand there are two or three editors available to improve as required, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm short of time at the moment, Rob; later maybe. The GAN process is chronically backlogged. It sometimes takes months for a nomination to be processed. A GA reviewer I would usually recommend is User:SilkTork. He is a Brit though and may feel that an American or Australian editor might be better for a UK politics article. You could still ask him though. If he thinks that he can do it neutrally, then he probably can—if he feels he can't, he'd say so. -- J  N  466  00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will see what to do, theres no hurry so I might just wait for someone to come along. No hurry, no worry. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Marimba Ani
Thank you for your hard work on this page, it is true, even today, that there are a lot holes to be filed in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 July 2011
 * Thanks. It's one topic area where we don't do well, with many articles still missing or stubs. -- J N  466  11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Category
Hi, sorry if I reverted you rather quickly with this. I only later understood you mistook the category name for meaning "maker of gay music" rather than "gay and musician", which is the actual meaning. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, Jayen466. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Cirt and Jayen466 Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of words and  diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 894 words and 26 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 10:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Satguru
Hi Jayen. If you have a moment, would you mind dropping in at this article? I am running low on agf there, and almost right out of civil. :) Rumiton (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye. -- J N  466  22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External link
Hi, somebody added this external link to the Rajneesh movement article. Is it appropriate? Joyson Noel Holla at me!  06:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems okay. The 1984 events seem to have been a one-off, but the movement is still listed in terrorist databases. -- J N  466  09:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hello, personal note, sorry: if you still have "The Interpreter of Desires" please will you mail it me or paste it in my namespace? Computer change problemetto. Thanks! Redheylin (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth
What happens now? Is there some place where the cases against you and Cirt are collated? I've never followed an arbitration committee hearing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, an arbitration case consists of four pages (each with an associated talk page):
 * The main case page, where the opening statement are shown and where the final result will be posted (in this case this is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466),
 * An evidence page where any interested editor can submit evidence subject to these rules (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence),
 * A workshop page where editors and arbitrators can work together to propose solutions (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop),
 * And a proposed decision page, which is reserved for arbitrators; this is where the proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies are voted on by the arbitrators (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision; the associated talk page is open to all).
 * According to the AC/P, the evidence page is open for two weeks after the case opening (this case opened on July 24). The workshop should be concluded three weeks after case opening, and the decision then posted a week later. Sometimes the timing is extended at the request of arbitrators, parties or participants. See Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration and AC/P. Best, -- J N  466  18:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for the excellent tutorial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)