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.

We've got a bit of a war on the above page. Honestly, the more eyes on it, the better. Particular questions seem to be about how and where to place material regarding criticism of Soka Gakkai by other Nichirenshu schools. John Carter ( talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai happens to be in my neck of the woods so I will see if I can help out on any of it. Cla68 ( talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- J N 466 04:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was probably a little to eager. I will be sitting on buses and airplanes for the next day or two, but I will try to help out once I'm settled at my trip location. Cla68 ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Safe journey! I will need to brush up on Soka Gakkai a little. -- J N 466 16:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I added this cite a year ago, but I just looked and it had been removed since then. So, I just readded it. That article has some good, general information. Cla68 ( talk) 04:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen466

Nice to hear from you! Concerning the reference from Neusner, just in case 5 books are listed [a-e], why is only one page cited? And why can't the article have 5 references instead of one, as citing 5 books in one reference seems so out of convention when there is more than space enough for such a serious question to actually cite all 5 books just in case this is relevant. We must be able to identify the right book and when I go through the list of Neusner it is clear that he is (only) concerned with Judaism by huge margin! Have you checked it out?

The reference on the reference list: 101 ^ a b c d e Neusner 2003, p. 228.

Best wishes, L F Olsnes-Lea Wikipedian

LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 21:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi LFOIsnes-Lea, the letters a–e in fact refer to five places in the article text that cite the same page from the same Neusner book. (Each of the letters is clickable and will make your cursor jump to the relevant place in the article.) For an explanation of this type of referencing, see WP:REFNAME. Best, J N 466 21:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On 9 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Stool Pigeon (newspaper), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the print identity of UK music newspaper The Stool Pigeon is modelled on Victorian tabloids? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Stool Pigeon (newspaper). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir ( talk) 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

NewtonGeek ( talk) 23:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I know this is a strange question, but does the idea of copyediting huge strings of quotations into a single, coherent article sound like anything that would remotely interest you? If it does, I would maybe ask you, when some of them get done, to copyedit some of the quotefarms which are currently being developed at User:John Carter/Falun Gong books. You are one of the best writers around here, and I think with your acquaintance with groups like Falun Gong you might be one of the better people to try to piece together articles from these strings of quotes. John Carter ( talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, John. That sounds adventurous. :) Will have a look. J N 466 04:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing some of your comments on talk pages long ago, or perhaps in archives, and generally felt were were of the same mind in terms of carefully applying and investigating the use of sources. Provided I have the time, I'm always happy to partake in such discussions to determine the most acceptable sources and applications thereof. What I do not like is editors who refuse to participate in such discussions in an open and collaborative manner, opting instead for edit warring, insults, or personal comments to malign others—which unfortunately became the default editing mode for some users on these pages. On another note, I think it would be very unfortunate if the net effect of this ArbCom case is simply to leave editors (who held no previous animus or prejudices against each other) with sour feelings towards others on the basis of which editors they supported during the case. I try to be careful of this myself, and just wanted to let you know that although we clearly had very different experiences with one of the parties, I have no reason to hold that against you, and certainly wouldn't deem that you share the qualities I found troubling in the other user. I wanted to mention this lest the presumptions of bad faith and editing bloc-type behavior that have marred this environment continues. Regards, Homunculus ( duihua) 12:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jayen466. Please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige#New_Ideal_Orgs and provide insight and comment. You have been active in similar discussions before and I thought you might be able to provide some assistance. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NestleNW911 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)