User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the reminder

I saw your talk page reminder in the page history. It's funny, because I've been trying to get myself over to that discussion for several weeks now. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an email

Hi J, have sent you a Wikipedia-related email. Cheers, Esowteric | Talk 10:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have to revert Idries Shah to an earlier version: massive quotes added; sourced material removed. Esowteric | Talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Kindly adress the issue under discussion
So far the editing seems to be appropriated by both yourself and Esowteric. Apparantly not for reasons of objectivity.
My hatchet job was not as it were unannounced on the dicussion page.
What do you have to say ?
Can we decide on a place to settle the argument ?

Lunarian (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's discuss on the Idries Shah talk page. Cheers, JN466 15:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the drops of Chateau Nasrudin.
And for making the connection near at hand on the talk page.
I had read it before...time, place, people...and grapes from a greenhouse.
Cheers (c'est le cas de le dire)

Lunarian (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers indeed! JN466 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar. That was very gracious of you. While we have had disagreements, I likewise respect the contributions you make to the project. I once saw a documentary on ants, which showed video of many ants carrying a heavy leaf. they all seemed to be pulling in different directions, but somehow the whole mass made progress towards the anthill. If ants can do it then so can Wikipedians. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a great image, and I'll drink to that. Cheers! JN466 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

PR

You did read them, right? :) Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm a quick reader. ;) --JN466 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

David Cameron Image

Hello,

In response to the following message you left on my talk page:

"...even though the picture has been deleted and the matter is thus moot, I would be interested in knowing which blog or site you originally obtained that saintly picture from. If you recall, please drop me a note here or on my talk page. Cheers, JN466 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"

... the answer is from right here:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/05/the-cameroon-diehards-answered-though-i-suspect-theyll-just-think-of-another-excuse-to-rally-round-b.html

Regards, New Canadian New Canadian (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply! I actually found the picture in the end. I guess you have learnt since then that the revert of your edit made international news (!) a few weeks ago; if not, some of the history is evident from this and this deletion discussion: [1]. (The picture was temporarily restored and used to illustrate the Sam Blacketer controversy article, until that article was deleted.) Ever heard the story about the wing beat of a butterfly in China causing a storm in New York? :) Regards, --JN466 18:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TerryMacro COI

In a small effort (huge for me) of attempted civility, after crafting a response to your last statement at COIN, I decided to paste my response here instead, at least temporarily, seems slightly less combative.

Jayen, how is that comment above in any way useful, appropriate, or related to what we are talking about, or even anything other than an attack against those editors you refer to? You suggested editors with a POV should say so, several immediately have made changes to their pages to reflect exactly what you said. Seems reasonable, and now, instead of saying something to the effect of "Yes, now that other POV pushers have acknowledged themselves, it seems right that TerryMacro does so as well" (I'm sure you'd make it sound better than that), you attack those same people again anyway, and completely ignore the issue that brings us all here. Honestly, you call that good faith? NPOV? It seems a lot like some version of a red herring post to me. (If you retract your comment, please remove this one as well, thanks)

Obviously, and to be clear, I'm not threatening anything, but I will post this to COIN in response if you feel there is no reason to remove your comment. If you decide to remove it there, feel free to remove this from your talkpage as well. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort and have removed the comment. You are probably right; we don't need more tension, and we have a long mediation ahead of us. Regards, --JN466 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It was only right and proper for you to remove the comment, Jayen, because it was extremely offensive and upsetting to me. In the future, when you have the urge to use negative innuendo against fellow editors, I suggest you provide hard evidence to back up your claims. In this case, if you do have hard evidence about someone then go ahead and bring it on. I'm not afraid of the truth. Meanwhile, perhaps it's you that should retire from the Prem Rawat articles.  :( Sylviecyn (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton's RfB

I responded to your statement at Juliancolton's RfB. I can provide links to various articles if you would like to see examples of his work. However, I think that the statement alone should be enough (along with the one page linked which is at FAC right now) to demonstrate that he is not confined to one tiny area. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Militant "Sufis" in the news: a worrying trend

Hi Jayen, this may interest you: Talk:Sufism: Militant 'Sufis' in the news:a worrying trend. With good wishes, Esowteric | Talk 10:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Esowteric. This was news to me. JN466 10:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayen, I've tentatively added to the section in Sufism. Can you check whether this is appropriate and in the appropriate place, please? Delete/move/reword/however you see fit. Many thanks, Esowteric | Talk 12:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Esowteric, have been distracted. I think what you inserted is fine; if anything, the part on the Naqshbandi militants could be shortened a bit, given that we are talking about one fairly obscure group, compared to the general population of sufis from Morocco to Indonesia. It might be worth inserting something about this group in the Naqshbandi article as well. JN466 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD

That's fair enough Jayen. Sorry, I was on my way over here to tell you and got waylaid. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob, and thanks for your note. JN466 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Per this, see this. → ROUX ₪ 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd just read it; in terms of powers and purpose it is pretty exactly what I had in mind. (FWIW, I think it's pretty much what arbcom had in mind, too.) As for membership, it might make sense for this to be greater; given the nature of the beast, there is really no need for everyone to participate all the time, and arbcom had anticipated increasing the membership further. The questions of appointment vs. election are also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Elections and at Wikipedia_talk:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Membership. Quite fun all this. Cheers, --JN466 19:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not too fussed about getting details of elections nailed down, as the current/interim group appointed by AC would handle that. (also no need to leave {{tb}}; I have your tpage watchlisted for now). → ROUX ₪ 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree it would be nice to kick the process off with th AC-appointed group. Whether the self-noms AC was going to add will be added is doubtful; but at least the basic group should continue. JN466 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Well I'd certainly appreciate your input over there. → ROUX ₪ 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientology edits

Jayden, I don't know why you removed my material showing the influence of Satinist Aleister Crowley over Hubbard and the development of Hubbard's Scientolgy scam. I cited a proper source. "Reprinted with permission from The Hubbard is Bare by Jeff Jacobsen. Copyright © 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen, P.O. Box 3541, Scottsdale, AZ 85271."

This link between Hubbary and Church of Satan founder is important information for people researching Scientiology, (perhaps with the view of joining). Why keep that hidden?

Below is my deleted addition.

In 1945, Hubbard studied in Los Angeles under Aleister Crowley, the Satanist who called himself the “Anti-Christ, the Beast of Revelations, and 666” Hubbard adapted Crowley’s “Magical Memory” theory into his Scientology “time track”. “The similarity between the Magical Memory and Time Track, then, is that they both can recall every past incident in a person's life, they both can recall incidents from past lives, and they both must be developed by certain techniques in order to make use of them”[2] Reprinted with permission from The Hubbard is Bare by Jeff Jacobsen. Copyright © 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen, P.O. Box 3541, Scottsdale, AZ 85271.In 1945, Hubbard studied in Los Angeles under Aleister Crowley, the Satanist who called himself the “Anti-Christ, the Beast of Revelations, and 666” Hubbard adapted Crowley’s “Magical Memory” theory into his Scientology “time track”. “The similarity between the Magical Memory and Time Track, then, is that they both can recall every past incident in a person's life, they both can recall incidents from past lives, and they both must be developed by certain techniques in order to make use of them”[3] Reprinted with permission from The Hubbard is Bare by Jeff Jacobsen. Copyright © 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen, P.O. Box 3541, Scottsdale, AZ 85271.

Thank you very much for your note. The source you used is self-published, and the more reputable literature has a different take on it. See e.g. references to Crowley in this book: [4] (pp. 20-21, 31, 259). Hubbard did not study with Crowley; they never met. --JN466 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a revised paragraph. Enough has been talked and written about this for it to warrant mention in the article. Cheers, --JN466 14:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, you are going to be heading to arbitration enforcement if you keep up this obvious POV campaign to sabotage featured article candidacies. You are engaging in blatant tendentious editing in an obvious attempt to filibuster the FA nomination. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

If i did,i did not mean to mess up your edits at this article when i reverted user:panehesy edits, sorry--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't, so no worries. :) JN466 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

If i did,i did not mean to mess up your edits at this article when i reverted user:panehesy edits, sorry--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't, so no worries. :) JN466 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

I appreciate your comments on the RfC talk page - to me, the possibility that two people can disagree yet respect one anothe's views is a big part of what Wikipedia is all about.

In that spirit, and iIn an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work:Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks promising. I'll chip in. JN466 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Query on book articles

Hi Jayen, I've just come across an article The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience which lists the subject book itself in bulleted "References", giving publication details.

Is that okay, or should it be under (say) a heading like "Publication details"?

Thanks in advance, Esowteric+Talk 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The book itself shouldn't be listed as a reference in the article on itself. And the publication details are already given in the infobox. I'd just delete that line. --JN466 18:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, J. Esowteric+Talk 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jossi's sanity

It was in poor taste to ask us to judge the reliability of a source based on our views of Jossi's mental abilities. That has nothing to do with the criteria for evaluating sources. Jossi was guilty of plenty of mischief. His morals were bad enough, please don't have us get into a discussion of his sanity, too.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I note everybody is commenting on all sorts of things – morals, mediation, whether or not I will make an edit or not – except the source which is the topic of the thread. If you intend to argue for its retention later on, now might be a good time to defend it; commenting on the source is what the thread is for. JN466 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the "question is out of order". I don't recall you placing much weight on the determinations of the RSN when we were considering Watts and Randi. Your recent behavior does not seem at all helpful to bringing editors together in mediation. I suggest that you take a less aggressive approach and let the mediators set the agenda, or opt out of mediation.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you just view it as a question that I asked the community for myself, because that is what it was. JN466 08:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question on the mediation talk page, which is fast becoming irrelevant: Why now?   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Due to the statements by the mediators, and the appearance that you've moved on to other interests, I'm going to mark the RSN thread as resolved. When the Patrick issue comes up, and if we need to consult at RSN, I hope that a more neutral request can be framed at that time.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I started the thread; I think it is up to me to mark it resolved. JN466 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Then please do so. If not I'll just collapse it.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's put this behind us, Will. It was not the sort of effect I was hoping for. JN466 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus

Congrats on the FA star for your old chicken! :) --JN466 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm quite surprised, as there is still a clarification needed tag which still needs dealt with. Still, your suggestions, comments, and observations were very helpful. thanks so much, JN. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientology Article

I have to agree with the other guy. If host is a collective noun then you wouldn't say "A host." "A host were" simply doesn't make any sense. 96.236.133.153 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Google:

TM Study by Otis

Thanks for you recent comment on the TM study done by Otis. It seems your comments were on another study he did, not the one being vigorously debated on the Wiki TM Discussion page. I took the time this morning to carefully read both the Otis study (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w9sv49ZHqWUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0) and Orme Johnson's review of this research (http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm#Otis_New). I have tried to do this in a neutral, objective way. Since I am not an experienced research scientist or statistician, I cannot do any analysis from that perspective. However, just from a level of common sense, it does seem that Orme Johnson raises valid questions about the Otis study. Do you have any comment on this? Many thanks for you help. --BwB (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, the study I looked at was the one in the book that you linked, starting on page 201. I know a little bit about statistics. Has the truthaboutTM.org paper been published independently of the website? Cheers, JN466 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No the truthaboutTM.org paper HAS NOT been published independently of the website. However, the author of the site, David Orme Johnson has been involved with many of the TM research studies. Do you feel his criticisms are valid on the Otis study? --BwB (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Scanning it briefly, yes there are some comments which seem salient; e.g. the confounding of the time period over which participants were to cast their minds for increases in problems with their time as practitioners, or that the question wording "since starting meditation" may have been confusing to dropouts who were no longer meditating. I can also see no reporting on positive effects in Otis' study, even though the study design captured both positive and negative effects – it seems Otis chose to just report the negatives (unless I missed something). If people who reported more negatives at the same time reported more positives, that would have been significant. David Orme Johnson does mention though that the paper is "widely quoted"; as such, it should be in our article per NPOV. Any criticism of it (Orme Johnson's conclusion is perhaps a bit harsh) should be sourced to an RS rather than to Orme Johnson's WP:SPS or my WP:OR. At the end of the day, remember that the article also quotes studies with opposite results to Otis' – few things in life are such that everyone agrees on them, and our articles should reflect that. Regards, --JN466 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/July&oldid=1143079224"