This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Jayen466 -- This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty regarding an issue with which you were tangentially involved in February 2009 -- see Can a book in Chinese and only available in China be used as a reliable source?.

To clarify, you are not the subject of this ArbCom process, but the thread in which you participated was identified as relevant by one of the parties -- see here.

You have no obligation to do anything in this context. Thank you. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a question for you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence#"Editorial maturity".   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Steve Crossin ^Talk/ ₂₄ 07:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw from here that it's been exactly three years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And a happy birthday from me too! It's great to have experts on Wikipedia, and I hope you continue to contribute. All the best, – Quadell ^{( talk)} 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento ( talk · contribs) and Rumiton ( talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi ( talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.

For the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

it has been suggested by ... RegentsPark My narrowboat.. that you are involved in this discussion User_talk:Off2riorob#Third_opinion_re_Rajneesh_assassination_plot I have asked for a third opinion and here is the comment.. here is the point of the comment ..

Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#this_comment_in_the_lede_falsifies_the_facts._and_portrays_a_biased_pov. let me know if you are involved as I have requested a Rfcomment. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi Off2riorob, I've commented on the article's talk page. Jayen 466 23:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Rick Warren (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon ( talk) 13:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, you said here that you found me difficult to work with. This comment puzzles me. My recollection is that I made repeated efforts to follow up with you on the concerns you expressed, and that you ignored my followups each time; you can check on Talk:William Timmons (and its archives) and verify the things you left hanging there. And recall that I was in this mess with Collect and THF ganging up on me; I made every effort to accommodate every substantiated complaint, but they kept saying UNDUE, COATRACK, and SYN without explaining why, in the same pattern that this RfC shows is common and commonly perceived as very disruptive on other pages. I don't think it was I who was being hard to work with, but if you can point out anything I did wrong there with respect to your involvement, I'll take a look. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is edits like this which I just could not understand. None of the cited sources said Timmons' memo had the importance you ascribed to it there, or even said that it was discovered via the FOIA proceeding (while we had a source, the Nation, asserting the Timmons-Thurmond correspondence had appeared in Rolling Stone magazine in 1975, nearly a decade prior to the FOIA case). And you kept reinserting similar phrasings. I understand that you had formed in your mind an image of what happened with these memos which you believed in in good faith, but it still took you several months to notice that the sources you cited did not back up your beliefs. I found that difficult to deal with. Jayen 466 08:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When you expressed that concern, I worked on fixing it. What about all the times you just ignored my attempts to follow up? Does this sound like me being hard to work with? In addition, there are multiple book sources that discuss exactly that material, namely the relationship between the Timmons memos, the ACLU, and the Wiener FOIA request; they just aren't clear enough about the particular point you objected to. I did the work on this article, bought the sources (multiple books and a classic Rolling Stone), and got nothing but obstinacy from Collect and THF. I thought your input sounded thoughtful and potentially useful, but your lack of followup was what made it hard to get anywhere. Anyway, that's in the past; I look forward to a better working relationship as we move forward. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll gladly admit that I was preoccupied elsewhere and did not follow the voluminous talk page discussions on a daily basis. Have you confirmed that the Rolling Stone article shows Timmons' memo as well as Thurmond's? Jayen 466 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the Rolling Stone shows only the memo to Mitchell, which says that one was also sent to Timmons; it does NOT show either of the memos to or from Timmons. Email me if you'd like a scan of the article. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps your hunch was right then after all, and the Timmons memo was part of the FOIA papers. However, we'd need a RS saying so. Jayen 466 15:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)