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.

How the hell do you do that!? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I took a random look at Orangemike's recent blocks. -- J N 466 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour? Please see the image toggling idea in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#A_few_bullet_points_from_the_discussion_area, and give me your word on my suggestion? Anthonyhcole suggested contacting you on my talk. I'd like to make it a bit clearer for you here, but I've over-spent my time of WP tonight and will be busy over the next couple of days. I've been meaning to ask you this but got a bit distracted, and at some point possibly-soon the closing admin on the Muhammad debate will post their report. If it's a goer I'll stay focused and spend as much time on it as it needs. I've become aware that there's a religion MOS too. Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Have commented in the discussion on your talk. Best, -- J N 466 03:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

this and that are interesting. 64.40.54.234 ( talk) 21:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. J N 466 03:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned on the TM research talk page per a change made to the content of the article should you wish to comment. By implication you have also been described as a member of the "Fairfield Cabal" here [1].( olive ( talk) 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

Thanks Olive, I will have a look, and perhaps try another rewrite. It may be a day or two before I get round to really sitting down to it. (In the meantime, I will consider my induction into the Fairfield Cabal as a mark of honour!) Best, -- J N 466 19:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for whatever you have time for. We need all the "outside" eyes on those pages we can get seems to me.( olive ( talk) 14:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

Hello Jayen, I'm writing re: some edits made by you to the TM Research article which were reverted yesterday by Fladrif. I think that your version was more accurate than Fladrif's, and I have posted a response to his edit on the talk page of that article. Best wishes EMP ( talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck ( talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Thank you for being friendly to User:Youreallycan, a fine editor, in a time of distress. I really appreciate it and I'm sure he does too. With regards, Anupam Talk 04:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Anupam. Best, J N 466 06:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that under the ARBSCI sanctions you are not supposed to be commenting on my appeal (see remedy 3A). I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for clarification: Jayen466 involvement in my ARBSCI appeal. I suggest that you remove your comments from the amendment case, as they are quite blatantly in violation of your sanctions. I'm not looking for you to be sanctioned for this violation, as you've probably forgotten about remedy 3A, but it's very inappropriate for you as a topic-banned editor to be commenting on another sanctioned editor's appeal. Prioryman ( talk) 01:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Come on, I'm not topic-banned from the Scientology topic area under 3A, and you know it. The only sanction I received in that case is here: Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Jayen466_topic-banned_from_Rick_Ross_articles. Cheers, -- J N 466 01:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 3A has two clauses. The first doesn't apply to you. The second, prohibiting "participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth" clearly does, as you are in the class of "Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding". There is no special "Jayen466 exemption". Please note that as a general rule editors who are under sanctions in arbitration cases don't get to comment on other editors' appeals. Prioryman ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 3A is titled "Scope of Scientology topic ban". I was not placed under a Scientology topic ban. The topic ban explanation in 3A)(ii) would relate to equivalent community processes related to articles on Rick Ross. Regards, -- J N 466 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making further attacks on me, why don't you try responding on the page I linked above? I really do think it would be a good idea for you to remove your comments as a sign of good faith. Prioryman ( talk) 01:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should rather drop me an e-mail, if you would like to explain. Cheers. -- J N 466 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I would prefer to resolve it openly and transparently, thank you very much. Prioryman ( talk) 06:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please correct your claim that I'm under a BLP restriction under ARBCC. That is not and never has been true. Seriously, you need to stop misrepresenting my sanctions. Prioryman ( talk) 14:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ARBCC#ChrisO_topic-banned, "ChrisO is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3."

Remedy 3 states, under Wikipedia:ARBCC#Scope_of_topic_bans, "3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues."

What if anything am I missing? (iii) and (iv), by the way, are the reason why you got blocked for commenting at a CC-related arbitration amendment request. Regards. -- J N 466 19:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a general restriction on all topic-banned editors; it's not something that specifically applies to me alone. But I stand corrected on this point. Prioryman ( talk) 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict)

I never said you were the only editor to whom this applied, and it's entirely immaterial. There were substantial BLP problems in both topic areas generally. In both cases, the findings of fact stated that biographies of living persons came under attack from various editors. As a result, a large number of editors were topic-banned from them in both ARBSCI and ARBCC, and you were among these editors in both cases. It is true that in ARBSCI, the BLP ban was more explicit, being specifically spelt out in your specific sanctions, which were unlike those of the other sanctioned editors. -- J N 466 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we are making progress then. Regards. -- J N 466 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, thank you for your recent comments at WP:BLP/N regarding my request for Jack Welch's article. The discussion over there has gone quiet in the last few days and I wanted to see if you could take another look? I also have an additional request there, about adding a photo I've uploaded. If you're able to help with that I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance, Hamilton83 ( talk) 16:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I've replied at WP:BLP/N but in case you didn't see, I wanted to thank you for your help re-adding the sentence and adding that additional source. Although I've marked my request on that page as resolved now, I will have some more improvements to suggest and I wonder if you'd be able to assist? I hope to post these to the Jack Welch article Talk page soon, if you're interested. Thanks, Hamilton83 ( talk) 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andreas! Would appreciate your comment on the inclusion of certain details concerning Falun Gong in the above article. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at The wub's talk page.
Message added 14:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

the wub "?!" 14:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Jayen466 ( talk · contribs) by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case (" Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem ( talk) 22:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I was pleased to see that. Do you have any remaining restrictions per Scientology? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and no. That was the only one I ever had. :) J N 466 16:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had L. Ron Hubbard on my watchlist for a year or so, and it looks pretty quiet and neutral to me. Would it be safe to assume the topic area is pretty quiet at the moment? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The topic area has generally been quiet for the past year or so. The biggest wars stopped three years ago, with WP:ARBSCI. I haven't looked at the Hubbard article recently, but took part as a reviewer in its FAC and supported Featured Article status for it. Some very high-quality work had gone into it. J N 466 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm pretty impressed by it. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, thanks again for your recent help with the Jack Welch article. I mentioned in my last note to you that I might have some additional revisions to suggest. I've now added some further suggested changes to the article's Talk page. I haven't received any comments there yet, so if you have the time I'd appreciate if you could look over them and make any changes you think are appropriate. Thanks, Hamilton83 ( talk) 20:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)