User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jayen466. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
thanks!
|
<font=3> Thanks for all your help with War of Bavarian Succession and the Battle of Dürenstein and many others.:) Auntieruth55 (talk) | 
|
|---|
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
- News and notes: New board member, rights elections, April 1st activities, videos
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Baseball and news roundup
- Features and admins: This week in approvals
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Seduction
Hi, I have easy access to Swedish newspaper databases. There are many reviews in different local newspapers. There is also a two-page article in the weekly magazine Focus. I could try to send the pdf to you. Or maybe it is easier if I put it on my own site, and I would mail you the url. Yea, that is what I will do, I see that you have your wikimail enabled. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is at FAC, and it's run into some opposition based on the prose. Apparently it's too snobby. (Referred to as the "nob-squad"). I've denobbed (simplified), but if you have time it could use another set of eyes, and/or a comment. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have you had a chance to take a look at this beyond the lead? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not yet. Was busy elsewhere, but will get to it. --JN466 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
- Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Hello
Jayen, I sent you an amusing mail, where is my amusing reply? Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for commenting Jayen, you are so concise, I will follow that up, as always, respect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Valued Picture
 |
An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status Your image, File:PetitPiton.JPG, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Elekhh (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Welcome Back
Hope you had a good trip. Do you have time to chime in on War of the Bavarian Succession FAC? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my next port of call. :) Just had to get that GA nom out of the way; Wizardman was getting impatient. --JN466 16:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Let's work on Siege next, if you want to. We need to add a bit, like a drawing of the castle plan, and I need to finish my dissertation! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Siege is the next thing I want to get to work on. Sorry about the delays. --JN466 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Let's work on Siege next, if you want to. We need to add a bit, like a drawing of the castle plan, and I need to finish my dissertation! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
- News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Sai Baba yet again
Hi Jayen. An SPA editor named Sailpra has become active at the above page. We were struggling towards a scholarly neutrality and hopefully some stabilty, when Sailpra introduced him/herself by saying: I don't think scholars can speak or even judge a spiritual person. So quoting scholars for spiritual matters is not an expected format. If wikipedia wants only scholars to write articles then I think wikipedia should contain no material on spirituality and devtion because they cannot be understood by scholars. He/she has made bulk edits from promotional primary sources, while ignoring talk page protestations. Care to hop in? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- An admin cannot magically fix an article. S/he is not the omnipotent, omniscient, like Sai Baba. I propose to file a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement if the problems with Sailpra persist. There were two arbcom cases over this article and the latest arbcom case made a provision for special measures. This may not be very fair to a newcomer, but I was not treated fairly by the arbcom too (topic ban without any diff of bad edits). In addition, the article has not become better in the last three or four years and this justifies some tough quick measures against editors whose edits are either incompetent or very biased, regardless of the reason or cause. Andries (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, the main reason why the article was never very is good is because reliable sources for the biography are not available, as several scholars explicitly wrote. Andries (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
- From the team: Introducing Signpost Sidebars
- Museums conference: Wikimedians meet with museum leaders
- News and notes: Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
- In the news: Making sausage, Jimmy Wales on TV, and more!
- Sister projects: Milestones, Openings, and Wikinews contest
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Gastropods
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Reid Stowe article - may day! may day!
Hello Jayen,
As I recall, your work on the Rawat article was always fair and, IMHO, unbiased. Would you please give me some help with the Reid Stowe article. [[1]] An IP regularly inserts OR laced with a hyperbolic tabloid quote and will not enter into discussion. Many of the sources are problematic.[[2]] Some good advice re editing this article would be greatly appreciated. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Watchlisted. --JN466 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you :-) Is there a policy that covers the following situation: A Wikipedia editor (Regatta Dog [[3]] ) is interviewed by a journalist, contributes to an article in the NY Daily News [4] and is identified by the journalist in the article. The tabloid article with content contributed by Regatta Dog is then used as the source for a statement included in the lede section of the relevant Wikipedia article. [[5]] The citation is incomplete and no link is provided apparently to mask Regatta Dog's involvement in the cited tabloid article. After deletion, the statement is repeatedly reinserted by an IP without discussion. Should I go ahead and delete the statement again only to see it reinserted? What would you do? --Zanthorp (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- If the material is reintroduced, start a new section at the BLP noticeboard, describing the facts as above, and ask what, if any, of the material is suitable for inclusion. In doing so, let the facts speak for themselves and avoid speculating on the motives and identity of any user; that's usually counterproductive. Just describe what happened, provide diff links, and let the editors at BLPN come to their own conclusions. --JN466 09:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly the help I needed. Thank you :-) --Zanthorp (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- If the material is reintroduced, start a new section at the BLP noticeboard, describing the facts as above, and ask what, if any, of the material is suitable for inclusion. In doing so, let the facts speak for themselves and avoid speculating on the motives and identity of any user; that's usually counterproductive. Just describe what happened, provide diff links, and let the editors at BLPN come to their own conclusions. --JN466 09:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you :-) Is there a policy that covers the following situation: A Wikipedia editor (Regatta Dog [[3]] ) is interviewed by a journalist, contributes to an article in the NY Daily News [4] and is identified by the journalist in the article. The tabloid article with content contributed by Regatta Dog is then used as the source for a statement included in the lede section of the relevant Wikipedia article. [[5]] The citation is incomplete and no link is provided apparently to mask Regatta Dog's involvement in the cited tabloid article. After deletion, the statement is repeatedly reinserted by an IP without discussion. Should I go ahead and delete the statement again only to see it reinserted? What would you do? --Zanthorp (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)