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.

This notice is being sent to you because you participated in this RFC, which was placed on indefinite hold when the user who was the subject abruptly retired from Wikipedia. As of today that user has announed that they are no longer retired and are retuning to the project. This does not mean that the RFC must be re-opened, but it can be if anyone feels there is a need for the discussion to continue. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at this and let me know (there) what you think. -- Ludwigs2 22:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A "project" that would be MfDed within hours of creation and quite certainly deleted? I know you don't care about my opinion Ludwigs, but when I read that, I see the actions of someone intent on getting banned. Reso lute 23:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

and this is exactly why you're not invited to the discussion. -- Ludwigs2 23:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I don't share your narrow views on certain topics is why I'm not invited. That you promise to censor opinions you don't agree with is why I didn't respond on your personal page. Reso lute 23:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I myself share some of the same concerns, but also think the "project" would be deleted. My own idea, again FWIW, might be to turn the Missing Encylopedic articles group into a broader group indicating at least the contents of other specialist encyclopedias, and, if possible, the relative "importance" of them. If all the relevant reference sources were known, and weighed according to general regard (the last would be difficult, of course), I do think that we would possibly be able to create content in a more workmanlike, neutral manner. Whether it would actually work or happen is another matter, of course. John Carter ( talk) 23:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jayen, the point is - as you ought to realize from the extended discussions you had on the images issue - is that a single individual (reasonable or unreasonable) cannot make any headway against the mass-block dynamic that rules on some pages. it requires a group effort (for moral support, if nothing else); single editors acting alone are always going to be isolated and then shut out of the process.

And Resolute: I don't really care that you disagree with me. I can work with your disagreement, but not with your trenchant hostility and reduction of everything to personal matters. You're not invited because you don't know how to turn off that nasty streak. -- Ludwigs2 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I am late to my own party. :) Please note, Ludwigs2, that you were replying to John Carter above, rather than myself. I think the community would not stand for a project that only those invited could contribute to, and rightly so, really. A better way is what Anthonyhcole did here for example, or indeed what Resolute did with Anthony and myself a few weeks ago, on Anthony's and my user talk page, to explore and negotiate a compromise for the Muhammad images that actually came pretty damn close to making it into the article. Or the sort of collaboration Johnbod is inviting here. In other words, there is nothing wrong with discussing issues on user talk pages, or subpages, and indeed uninviting people from such discussions, if it's really necessary, but if a page is in project space, it will be always be public and free for all. Cheers. -- J N 466 09:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc ( powwow) 16:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Hi Jayen, I don't think we've ever ran into each other before, but I've seen you in a number of discussions. I stumbled across Early life of L. Ron Hubbard recently and noticed it was in pretty good shape but that its creator had retired. I decided to try to get it to Good Article status since it is well-written and well-researched and it's creator wasn't around to do that. I saw that you had worked with its creator on the FAC of another article. If you get a chance/are interested could you take a look at the article and see if you have any issues/suggestions about the article and its sourcing? I was chatting with a prospective reviewer earlier and I realized that I'm at a bit of a disadvantage since I'm not as familiar with the sources as I am on articles that I've written from scratch. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I've left a comment on the article's talk page. It would really be best to get MartinPoulter involved, as he was part of the Hubbard FA effort from which this article was spun out. I've dropped him a note as well. Best, -- J N 466 16:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your post there, I'm not ignoring it, it makes some important points. I'll try and find time to respond this evening. I'm really putting far more time and effort into this than I had planned. Rich  Farmbrough, 15:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

No problem. It's a very messy affair, and I am in about three minds about it. As for your last sentence, I think you've inadvertently expressed the Wikipedia motto. ;) -- J N 466 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You were mentioned. [1] Regards, -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will have a look. -- J N 466 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've opened a request with the Mediation cabal about the Muhammad images RFC. Please see the mediation request if you want to comment. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 14:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- J N 466 14:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, and the same to you! -- J N 466 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Depictions of Muhammad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saadi ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input regarding the TimidGuy case.

PhilKnight ( talk) 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. (I like that kitten.) -- J N 466 23:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For continuing to do your part in a less than friendly environment. Many thanks Momento ( talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, mate. -- J N 466 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)