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.

I am objecting to your edits to TM pages that use comments at arbitration as the justification. Wikipedia works on consensus, usually achieved on the article talk pages. Content is not decided in arbitration workshops. If you would like to discuss your proposed changes on the article talk pages that'd be appropriate. But basing content on comments at arbitration is not a precedent we should pursue. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop#ArbCom deciding content.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Will, what absolute rot. James as I'm sure you know reverted here, and regularly deletes RS content and has with out explanation many times. That an editor and an admin would delete a change made by an uninvolved editor after discussion which clearly indicates the content wording is incorrect with an edit summary of "better before" is only consistent with past behaviour. ( olive ( talk) 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC))

Actually, I didn't notice James' edits until I'd already posted. Jayen466 is not an uninvolved editor. If you think that the ArbCom should start deciding content disputes then you're welcome to make that proposal at WT:ARBCOM.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayen has never edited TM articles as far as I know. Further I suggest you leave arbcom to the arbitrators.( olive ( talk) 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC))

That was per my comments at arbitration, which I assumed anyone with an interest in the topic area had seen, given that a few days had elapsed since I'd made them. The fact that an arbitrator had wondered aloud in the proceedings why we had such strange wording in the article does not mean that arbcom decides content. But looking at the passage Roger was wondering about, and the source, I thought he had a point. Off to the article talk page we go then. -- J N 466 21:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year, my best wishes of health and happiness for year 2012. Ich schenket Ihnen meine Glücks und Gesundheitswünsche für das Jahr 2012 anne. Je vous offre mes meilleurs vœux de santé et de bonheur pour l'année 2012, ושל אושר לשנה 2012. -- Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève ( talk) 10:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geneviève, thanks and likewise all the best for 2012. Good to see you back! -- J N 466 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Great video by the way! Far out. -- J N 466 12:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, there is an issue in the page Urine Therapy. I noticed some of your edits are related to this subject and was wondering if you could help since there's a dispute between me and another user on the section Islam? Thanks. Inai09 ( talk) 12:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no recollection ever editing that topic. If I did, it was probably a vandalism revert. Cheers, -- J N 466 12:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that we would leave one article worded each way until a RfC garnering further input from the community was completed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the negative language from the Thackera article and made sure that what is present is (a) all from the original article from yesterday, (b) all neutral in tone.

I think that the current version is a much better article than what was there yesterday.

Please feel free to leave me further feedback either on the talk page or on my own personal page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjic ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jayen. I replied on my userpage on tr-wiki. The hadith seems to be apocryphal. -- İnfoCan ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I added some more material but it is pretty rough and needs a clean-up. I need to take a break from this. Polish it as you wish. Regards, -- İnfoCan ( talk) 23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look it over. Best, -- J N 466 03:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as you seem to be following developments related to the article more closely than I am, could you please give me a bell on my talk page once the RFAR has ended so that we can start looking into GARing the prose? Thanks. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Best, -- J N 466 03:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Is being edited by an IP. Just to let you know. Jim1138 ( talk) 01:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will have a look. -- J N 466 01:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. Do you think the article should be split or do the two halves make more sense when read together? -- İnfoCan ( talk) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi İnfoCan, for the moment I think we should keep things together. I haven't really had time to look over your additions in detail yet, and won't be able to until next week the way things look, but the original shama-il texts and the hilya poetry derived from them form the background for the calligraphic panels; they're really all stages of a single tradition. It may be that at some point we can create daughter articles (e.g. on Hakani's work, which is notable in its own right), but for the moment I think it's best to keep things together. Thanks and best wishes -- J N 466 18:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Maryana. -- J N 466 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And modern productions? The most popular contemporary image in Iran seems to be the one of him unveiled as a teenager, and mature unveiled images are also available, though none of us are able to say how relatively common the two types are. None of the sources you quote seem to cover modern images, and who has ever quantified these? It is in fact imprtant that there is no corpus available to scholars. The statement is unqualified by date or medium, and one as regards quantity. There are simply no RS to back this up, and in any case why does the arbcom need to say this, misleadingly giving the impression that the choice between veiled and unveiled was one of the major aspects of the discussions. The more vehemently you rebut criticisms of the draft, the more you demonstrate that it has a bias. Johnbod ( talk) 14:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been discussing book miniatures because book miniatures are what the article uses, and book miniatures is what these sources comment on. As far as the book miniature tradition is concerned, we do have sources commenting on relative frequency of veiled vs. unveiled depictions, and sources are in agreement that the veiled ones are more common (some say they are the rule): exactly opposite to the status in the article. The precise reason why we choose to focus on the more uncommon (and most offensive) type of image, rather than presenting them in some sensible sort of proportion, was a point raised and discussed. Why would we do that? It's not as though the unveiled images we have are particular famous. The most famous mi'raj image is veiled, and we don't have it in the article. (Modern-day Iranian productions like that altered photograph of a boy are geographically even more limited; they might be okay in the Farsi version, but I would not advocate having one here.) -- J N 466 17:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But the arbcom draft statement was not limited to book miniatures, nor are they mentioned at all in it. I certainly don't advocate putting the modern teenage image in the article. Much of what you say may be true, but does not bear on the advisability of the arbcom making such sweeping unqualified statements on content matters as a "finding of fact" when these issues were not even gone into in the case. Johnbod ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks like being a train-wreck to me. I suppose it will have to be done in several stages, & will drag on forever. It occurs to me that it would be worth trying to construct an agreed statement from several regulars on both sides of the argument re the corpus of images and their historical usage and so on, in the hope that this can forestall extended arguments on the points that are now generally agreed. Obviously lots is not agreed, but there are significant points that are. Johnbod ( talk) 12:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think the RfC idea is idiotic. Given the average Wikipedian's knowledge of the subject area, it's a bit like having a community vote on which formulae to include in Riemannian manifold. I'd much rather get the disruptive and clueless people out of the way, and hammer it out in a GAR or FAC. (If I muster all my optimism, I might say the RfC idea is "fraught".) Having said that, if this is what is going to happen, I agree that we can maximise the slim chances of this process not being a complete train wreck by doing what you suggest. I've exchanged a couple of e-mails with Safi as well now, and asked him a couple of days ago if he would be interested in helping to set up the RfC (no reply as yet). Cheers. -- J N 466 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll set up a sandbox draft & let you know - or you do. Johnbod ( talk) 12:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Note Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Proposed_decision#GAR_vs._RfC. -- J N 466 13:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Draft at User:Johnbod/Ice Age art. Johnbod ( talk) 23:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I corrected an inadvertent double negative in my statement [1] after you endorsed it. I think that change won't substantially affect your position, but I thought it would be best to let you know. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right it makes no difference; I'd read it as you'd intended it. Cheers. -- J N 466 13:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)