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.

Hi Jayen, I'm going to answer in the talk of Scientology page -- Ignlig ( talk) 17:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

here. Let me know if it's not clear or you need more explanation. -- Ignlig ( talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

you welcome :-) -- Ignlig ( talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw what you wrote about Nationmaster. I am curious to see what you have to say about WP:CLONE, an active proposal. Sebwite ( talk) 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is good and needed. I support it and have commented on its talk page. Jayen 466 14:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's as good as no edit summary at all, isn't it? Why the removal of relevant info on William Timmons? How can the link to Wiener v. FBI make sense as a see-also about Timmons? The article there doesn't mention the connection; the place to mention it is in the relevant BLP section. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You made an edit or two that added wikilinks within a quote; just wanted to drop you a note that WP style guidelines are to avoid such internal-quote wikilinks -- I wasn't aware of that, either, until someone pointed it out to me. THF ( talk) 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Jayen 466 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayan, I see you have made some major changes to the murders section. The content you changed was sourced to this BBC documentary. You commentary doesnot support what the documentary says. Relevant sections of the BBC documentary can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOecpMkHH0

Kindly go through the video and change things in the section if you feel they need correction to align to what the source says. White adept ( talk) 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to Spidern's version. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go through the video in detail. Please bear in mind too that the BBC video is not the only source dealing with this. The "Sathya Sai Baba and the press" book I linked to on the talk page also has material on this, and I am sure there is much more available.

Generally, I think what you suggested on the talk page is a good idea – create a spin-off article that covers the incident in more detail, and just put a brief summary in Sai Baba's BLP. And please, make yourself thoroughly acquainted with the 2006 and 2007 arbcom decisions and do not reinsert material cited directly to the "Findings" document without talk page consensus. Jayen 466 17:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

J if you can will you look at the discussion at the above? Redheylin ( talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How to proceed? There's disruptive, uncivil, puppetry, OR, the lot. This person has no intention of allowing a proper presentation of the subject. Redheylin ( talk) 03:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your bold editing in improving the Sathya Sai Baba article along with User:Spidurn. Articls has definitely come a long way from where it was due to your efforts.

I have a question. You had mentioned in the talk page about creating a separate section for "Killings in the Ashram". http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=276496176&oldid=276445679.

• The problem with this article has always been identifying the reliable sources. There are a number of conspiracy theories put forth by different people which were discussed in the newspapers at that time of killings but none of the conspiracies were proved. Some theories said this was due to internal fight between 2 factions of his followers. Some said the Vishwa Hindu Parikhshith was involved. There were other claims. Nobody knows for sure why there was an attempt on Sai Baba's life. Attempts on religious leaders life is not a uncommon thing. There was attempt made on Pope John Paul II in 1981. Nobody knows for sure why these attempts are made. We will never know the real truth.
• My question is isn't it beyond the scope of wikipedia an encyclopedia to analyze these conspiracy theories based on these questionable sources.
• Wikipedia stresses a lot on using only very reputed NPOV sources as its a Biography of Living Person.
• Some of the theories were also put forth by Basava Premananda and he even wrote a book "Murders in the Ashram". But this was dismissed as an unreliable source in the mediation discussion by BostonMA.

Let me know what you think of my questions. We can probably have more discussion related to this.

I had spent several hours looking at these earlier mediation discussion for the Sathya Sai Baba article. The Boston MA discussion happened in 2006. Several sources such as Findings, Basava Premananda and his book were also discussed and dismissed as unreliable. Basava Premananda is still being used in the article in a couple of places. Some of the sections which were deleted from the earlier template such as the teachings could also be added back to the article. I am planning on doing that. I am also looking at the source list provided by arb.com for further improving the article.

Radiantenergy ( talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to the teachings section you would want to reintroduce? Jayen 466 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Andries also strongly feels we need to revert to earlier version and he wants to revert to December 2007 version. He added his vote to revert to earlier version in the talk page. I agree with him.

• There are too many issues with the current article. The article has made some progress but again there are still unreliable sources and WP:UNDUE and unjustified criticism. For example Sathya Sai Baba is accused of murder right in the second paragraph of the beginning of the article. Such negative biased criticism is unjustified and incorrect. There were killings in his ashram that's not same as saying he committed murder.
• Even if we spent several hours or several days it will still be difficult to bring it in par with the old article which was balanced with equal positive aspects from Sathya Sai Baba's life as well in dealing with the criticism.
• Wikipedia allows editors to revert to better version based on consensus. Please let us know since you are one of the involved editors. Are you still in favor of reverting to the December 2007 version? Radiantenergy ( talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

hey jayen.I like your user page. I'm doing a little work on the sheela article ..and I was wondering do you know of any free use photos of her? recent if possible! best regads to you ( Off2riorob ( talk) 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi there, and no, I wouldn't know where you could find a free pic. Sorry. Jayen 466 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have created an arbitration enforcement thread, seen here. ← Spidern → 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, Please note: [1] White adept ( talk) 23:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

God knows I'm not necessarily the best qualified to do this sort of thing, but I will do what I can. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, your summary "Thurmond sent a memo to Timmons about Lennon. Timmons answered a month later saying the INS had issued a deportation order" is about right. I think the only thing I've ever tried to add beyond that is some explanation of the contnet of the memos and of the historical context of those memos with respect to what they were part of (the Nixon re-election campaign) and in terms of why we know about them (Jon Wiener's FOIA request). Your initial opinions seems constructive; like I'd say that makes it a RS. I think pretty much all the other sources cited in connection with the case at present are illegitimate, since they don't really mention Timmons and I agree with Collect that if the cited source does not mention Timmons' name in direct relation to the Lennon case, then it is not a source we should use in that section to which I agreed that we should not use sources that don't mention Timmons, and asked you to point out if I did so. You didn't follow up in either case. And now you're going back again to the Rolling Stone 1975 publication of the memo from Thurmond, but have continued to ignore me trying to update you on that; it was the copy to Mitchell only, not the Timmons copy nor his reply, in spite of what some articles have stated. I'll be happy to email you a scan if you like. It's clear that Collect and Rtally3 and THF are working from a right-wing POV. It's much less clear why you've joined them in holding back progress in fixing up this article. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, none of the sources you put up say that the Timmons memo was subject to the FOIA request. Have I missed that? We'd need a clear explicit mention to that memo. As it is, the Nation article says the Thurmond-Timmons documents (plural) were in Rolling Stone.

I don't think that has been brought up as an issue before. If I don't find a clearer source on it, let's take it out. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not doing it because of right-wing sympathies, I'm rather more into Democrats than Republicans ;-), but it's a BLP and it should be right. Cheers, Jayen 466 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Note further that DL has no factual basis for asserting any "right wing POV" to me. That sort of accusation impresses me zero, and usually only actually proves the other perspn's POV in practice. Collect ( talk) 22:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I thought you came more from a BLP POV anyway, but the politics really don't matter in this case. Jayen 466 23:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Very much a BLP POV <g>. Collect ( talk) 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Collect. Review your whole history at William Timmons and the many other articles you edit with THF. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Show the diffs --- start with all the ones I disagreed with THF on first. Making such false accusations does you no favors. At htis point, I have now posted to well over six hundred pages -- care to say how many THF and I overlap on? I would like you to actually read them before making claims this time. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 11:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Jayen. I've noticed the second RFAR (I've been watching Wikipedia since my ban, so I noticed it within a few days.) That said, while I could probably contribute to the case somewhat, I'm not so sure whether it would a) Be welcome or b) Be a wise idea. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/ ₂₄ 21:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, I think I might stay out of it. You guys might need a mediator again some day (Laughs). :-) Steve Crossin ^Talk/ ₂₄ 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am currently a graduate student, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time. Curesearcher ( talk) 02:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)