User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2011/May

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

MobileReference a RS for fan service?
Hi - I believe you added a reference to the talk page on fan service at some point that went like this:

Firstly, google books has conked out, so I can't see the page any more. Secondly, looking at the book, I'm not sure that it counts as a RS, as it has no author, and the publisher is not academic? Could you please shed any light on this? --Malkinann (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The publisher's website is here, which looked like an established publisher. They produce e-books only. I can't see the page reference I cited either. Page 672 still comes up for me though, here, and describes hentai. As far as I recall, there was a similar paragraph on etchi on the page prior.
 * After some digging, I see there are some press reports of a copyright breach by the company:, so perhaps caution is warranted. -- JN 466  12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your rationale. :) I think I'll remove it from the list of further readings, just to be on the safe side. --Malkinann (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's better. Upon reading a bit more in the book, I found the quality was mixed -- some passages read well and seemed well researched, others not so much. -- JN 466  23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MobileReference's Asian Art is certainly not a reliable source, since it's a fork of Wikipedia itself, as are many of this publisher's other products. The licensing information provided on the "back cover" of Asian Art  acknowledges that it uses "material from public domain including Wikipedia", and just a little digging will show that the material on page 665 has been directly copied from some earlier version of Wikipedia's article Anime.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there some blacklist we could add it to? If not, I'll start a thread at RS/N, just so there is a log of it when people search the noticeboard archive. -- JN 466  14:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, subpages of the page I have linked to above contain lists of Wikipedia mirrors and forks arranged in alphabetical order (click on one of the strings of characters given in the first paragraph to go to the corresponding list). I intend to add MobileReference and those of its publications that I know to be Wikipedia forks to these lists whenever I can find the time, but I will be more than happy if someone else beats me to it.  I think it would also be a good idea to post a notice to the reliable sources noticeboard, if only to enlist help with cleaning out citations to MobileReference publications from other Wikipedia articles.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Need comments on this RFC - [| discussion]
Need your views and comments. One should also go through ['no consensus' discussion].210.89.52.81 (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
For fighting the good fight about Commons the past few days =) SarahStierch (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarah. -- JN 466  21:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * da du ziemlich gut deutsch sprichst hier noch ne anmerkung zu diesem beitrag hier. du nimmst bezug auf diese diskussion, dann hättest du dir auch die mühe machen sollen, wenigstens etwas hinter her zu klicken, bevor du da mit leicht tendenziösem duktus "including the editor who wrote the Featured Article on BDSM in German Wikipedia", etwas bestimmtes implizieren wolltest. konkret ging es bei dieser sache damals um zwei autoren, die gezielt löschanträge gegen einen themenkomplex gestellt haben (pornofilme) auf einen davon wird ja verlinkt. dort findest du den beschrieben konflikt versionslink und kannst sehen worum es ging. die besagten beiden nutzer hatten löschanträge gestellt, ich hatte die artikel mit referenzen ausgebaut und fussnoten gesetzt. die links hatten also die vom benutzer wieder entfernten (siehe difflink) inhalte referenziert. bei diesen ging es um einen relevanznachweis und allgemeinen ausbau des artikels. es wäre schön, wenn du vor verfrühten urteilen beim nächsten mal da einfach nachschaust oder nachfragst. viele grüße Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC) ich habe wie auf meiner seite geschrieben vorhin eine kurze antwort in die maillinglsit geschrieben, vor allem an sarah gerichtet
 * Die Quellen, um die es damals ging, sind nicht mehr einsehbar, und es ist wohl auch ein bisschen zu lange her, als dass es sich jetzt noch lohnen würde, da große Worte drüber zu verlieren. (Ich möchte meine Edits von 2008 heute auch nicht analysieren.) Ich kenne Nemissimo ein wenig und halte seinen Sachverstand eigentlich für recht solide, aber wenn ich Dir Unrecht getan und vorschnell geurteilt habe, dann entschuldige ich mich hiermit gerne. Zu der Featured-Diskussion: für mich war das Bild vom objektiven Bildungs- und künstlerischen Wert her einfach nicht soo superlativ, dass es den Featured-Status verdient hätte. Das hat nichts mit den nackten Brüsten zu tun, sondern mehr damit, dass Licht und Schatten, die Oberflächenstrukturen, die Winkel und Perspektiven und die Komposition einfach nicht stimmig sind. Dass nicht jeder das Englisch so gut draufhat, dass er in Commons beschwingte Reden halten kann, ist auch kein Thema. Wenn ich Dich aber dazu bewegen kann, darüber nachzudenken, dass es vom Blickwinkel anderer Leute (insbesondere Frauen) doof aussehen kann, wenn ein Bild, das nach Meinung vieler Leute weder vom Künstlerischen noch vom Bildungswert her was wirklich Besonderes ist und mit Kommentaren wie "schöne Titten" gefeatured wurde, ein paar Monate später in Bangladesch, China, Russland usw. auf der Hauptseite von Wikipedia erscheint, dann bin ich schon zufrieden. Ansonsten, Respekt, dass Du auf Gendergap vorbeigeschaut hast; Du bist gerne eingeladen, Dich dort weiter zu beteiligen. Und gleichfalls Respekt, dass Du hier sachlich aufgetreten bist und nicht mit der Absicht, mir eine über die Birne zu hauen. Gruß. -- JN 466  00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

An interesting character
Thought you might like to take a wander through this chap's blogspot. Quite an exceptional linguist with a piercing eye for poetry, both good and bogus. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will have a look. -- JN 466  23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here we are
Also corrected for perspective. Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Much better. -- JN  466  23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hounding Cirt
Six months ago I said you were WP:WIKIHOUNDING Cirt. Since then it's only gotten worse. This latest charge that he is engaged in advocacy of a miscellaneous set of topics, following your forum-shopping campaign against the Santorum article, makes it look like you have a serious obsession with him. He has written dozens of featured articles on a variety of topics, but you act towards him as if he were the worst problem user on Wikipedia. Your behavior is disruptive and anti-social. If you continue to go after him, following his editing, and trying to foment opposition to him on and off wiki then the next step may be for the community to ban you from interacting with him. Please just take his articles off your watchlist and ignore him. If what he's doing is so bad then other editors can take care of it.  Will Beback   talk    06:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I don't think me and Cirt have any issues with interacting with each other, but I found Jayen's evidence of advocacy to be worthy of mention. Jayen was right to bring it to Cirt first on his talk page.  Will, do you have clean hands here?  Haven't you and Jayen continuously disagreed on content in at least one topic area? Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen466 has followed me around too, but not as much as Cirt.    Will Beback    talk    07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second Will's concerns. I very rarely go to an established editor's talkpage but I am particularly disturbed by Jayen's off-wiki activity re: Cirt.  This combined with Jayen's posts at Cirt's talkpage give a strong appearance of Wikihounding, and I submit it is beyond community tolerance.  Jus  da  fax   07:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beyond community tolerance?" Are you two aware of the recent requests from the community for Cirt to leave BLPs alone when it comes to Scientology-related editing?  I think you two are attacking the messenger. Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cirt stopped editing Scientology, but Jayen hasn't stopped going after Cirt. It's time to drop the stick.   Will Beback    talk    07:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I haven't got any of Cirt's articles on my watchlist, and hadn't talked to them in months. The concern about the Santorum article came up on wikien-l three days ago. It's actually quite an important discussion, and I suggest you put some thought into why it may not be a good idea to leverage Wikipedia as a political tool. And in fact, I don't think there are many editors who've custom-written politicians' BLPs in time for elections, complete with endorsements in call-out boxes, and submitted them for DYK a week before voters went to the polls. That's quite exceptional. I don't know of anyone else who's done that, and it's relevant to the present discussion. Cirt's undertaken not to do that again, and I think that's for the best of the project, and it's good enough for me. -- JN 466  07:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment isn't about the Santorum article, an issue which predates Cirt and in which he has done nothing wrong. It's about your interactions with Cirt, which seem to include a personal animus. You have an extraordinarily long list of overlapping page edits with him. If you're not following him then he's following you.   Will Beback    talk    07:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have nearly twice as many overlaps with Cirt as I do: . And you have about as many with me as I have with Cirt: Make of that what you will. -- JN  466  07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've edited 24,949 different pages - I have high overlaps with a large number of editors. You have edited only 3,289 different pages, about an eighth as many. (Cirt has edited 49,802 pages!)
 * The issue is your interactions with Cirt, which seem to be aimed at seeking sanctions against him. I gather you discuss him negatively off-Wiki with other editors. Is that true? What do you say about him on WR? Are they things which could not be repeated here?   Will Beback    talk    08:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you're now getting a bit weird. We'll discuss this another day, when you've calmed down a bit. ;) -- JN  466  08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can answer the question yourself - did you discuss Cirt at the meetup?
 * This dispute apparently traces back to Cirt's editing of the Rajneesh-related articles. Is that correct?   Will Beback    talk    08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I first met Cirt on a Rajneesh article, yes. We actually got on then, as we have at times since then. At the meetup, we discussed the article Cirt wrote, not Cirt. We discussed how it blurred the line between reporting and participation, and how giving publicity to a campaign whose only goal is publicity cannot help aid it. The discussion was not at all focused on the editor. What I care about in this present case is the Santorum article, not Cirt. Just like the naked boobs on the Bengali main page the other day, being puerile about these things lets the side down. Cirt is only relevant insofar as they have -- demonstrably -- lent their shoulder to external campaigns before, so it's possible they're doing the same here. It certainly seemed that way to me, and to others at Wikien. -- JN 466  12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will Beback's statement that "Cirt stopped editing Scientology" is completely incorrect. Cirt's level of activity on Scientology-related articles has decreased, but a quick look through Cirt's contributions reveals edits to such articles as Xenu, Tory Christman, Margaret Grubb (an article about L Ron Hubbard's otherwise completely unremarkable wife), and Scientology beliefs and practices within the last few days. That may or may not be relevant to an accusation of wikihounding, but it bears noting as it relates to earlier complaints about Cirt's editing in this area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cirt said at the time he would continue to look after FA and GA articles. Incidentally, Will tried the wikihounding angle last time round: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656. People didn't buy it then either. Elen of the Roads used the same expression as Cla68 above -- shooting the messenger. It's not my fault if an editor is liable to engage in questionable conduct. The way to prevent fallout is not to cry wikihounding when it's pointed out, but to avoid the conduct to begin with. -- JN 466  12:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you've discussed his editing at a Wikmeetup. Is it also true that you (and Delicious carbuncle) discuss him and his editing on WikipediaReview? Would you object to having your comments there copied here for review?   Will Beback    talk    08:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology
Jayen &mdash; Thank you for your apology to me at ANI about your posts on external forums offsite about me, and thank you for your pledge to reduce that behavior. I appreciate the wise words in the post by SlimVirgin diff. Though you and I disagree about the nature of your wikihounding of me for the past three years &mdash; we both agree that legitimate concerns have been raised. And I wish to work to address those concerns. But that is IFF those concerns are raised in a good faith manner on-Wikipedia, and not saved up in some sort of one-fell-swoop. I hope you do realize that any communication coming from you, because you have followed me for three years, is heard with a degree of me being disturbed and emotionally upset that you have followed me around for so long and posted about me on at least three different websites including this one. I am sorry if that has made my reactions different, than, say, to criticism posted from a neutral-third-party-admin (as Sadads suggested) &mdash; but it cannot hurt for you to at least attempt to implement Sadads' recommendation, and in the future try to go through an intermediary in order to lessen the degree of impropriety that may be seen from focusing on me so much in the future.

I wish to be more responsive to concerns raised on-Wikipedia. And I appreciate very much your statement to stop posting in websites offsite in the same manner you have about me and with the same degree of focus. But due to the nature of our previous interactions over the past three years, perhaps SlimVirgin is right and Sadads is right. Perhaps what is needed now is a break, for both of us to step back from future interactions and back away from all the heat generated, assume a little more good faith, and try to communicate involving a neutral-third-party-admin. -- Cirt (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)