Jump to content

User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Siege of Godesberg

I think we're okay on these now. I don't have time to mess with this any more right now--I must finish a chapter in the next day or two. If there are still problems, just drop me a note, and I'll get to it later in the week. It can just sit in GA for a few more days without any problems. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No hurry here, either. I would have been happy to look for the right page numbers, but unfortunately the pdf versions are not searchable, and I haven't any clue as to how many pages forward or backward I have to look. Good luck with the chapter. --JN466 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to start on another one, feel free to to do! cologne riot needs doing, plus some others. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for guidamce

Sir

I would like to have a little clarification on use of primary sources per this discusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fair_Game_(Scientology) Thank You Bravehartbear (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Musopoets of India

I did work on the sant-bhakta poets of North India and I became aware of another hot-spot that I'd like you to be aware of: Ravidas is a bone of contention with some Sikhs - there was even a murdr recently, and the page is vulnerable. I know you've no time, but thought I'd tell you anyhow owing to your legendary abilities. Best of with whatever. Redheylin (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words [1] about my work on the article Alford plea. It is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. I am glad if we can still have the occasional conversation like that as well. :) --JN466 11:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It is always nice to hear positive recognition of my efforts at quality improvement work on articles, especially those that previously had poor or no sourcing. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
And you excel at such work. I like the pictures, too; it looks like an encyclopedia article now. --JN466 11:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification of ANI thread regarding you

I am posting this notification so that you are aware that I have started a threat at WP:ANI regarding the questions I asked earlier. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jayen466 I didn't want to harrass you further after you removed the questions here, but persons starting ANI threads are required to notify parties involved, and you deserve a fair chance to respond there if you chose to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, excuse my butting in. Outing: I can confirm that the addition of a RL detail in one of the links provided yields over 800 hits on google. One of the results in page 1 provides sufficient detail to find your RL name, employment and location. Have privately emailed you the google search, as it is not safe to show it here. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll just post my name, address, picture and telephone number on my user page and be done with it. This place is a joke. --JN466 11:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User page disclosure

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, and if it is, erase this; nothing further will be said by me. My only concern is that if you don't make some sort of statement on your user page to the effect of your past status, considering that you do edit the material, that at some point it might basically bite you and create trouble for you that neither of us would want. I say explicitly, somewhere, on my user page that I am a Catholic. I edit religion content almost exclusively, and know myself that I've crossed the line at least a few times there regarding advocacy. I don't remember having ever gotten any trouble for it. I have never had any problems with you as an editor, and, from what I've seen, have no reason to think that is ever likely to change. But we have new editors arrive all the time, and a very real chance exists that sometime one of them might create trouble for you regarding this serious enough for you to want to retire. This is particularly likely if you do comment elsewhere in such a way as to make it easy to link to your name here. I don't know how easy that might be, I haven't checked and don't intend to. if you have once in a while used a title or honor you received from someone, those can be hard to get, you earned it, and that is not a problem. I personally think that just a statement that you have extensive knowledge and familiarity with the topic of religion based on your former status would be enough. I just do not want to there to be a chance of us potentially losing a productive, net gain to the project like you over a fight with someone else over something like this, particularly considering it is so easily avoidable. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John. I was in fact just previewing the message I will add and appreciate your kind counsel and encouragement. --JN466 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Osho

to be honest I'm not so sure, plus I generally find the whole star/barnstar/pat on the back system pretty distasteful, it ecourages and supports a hierarchical set of values. I don't contribute here for kudos or virtual rewards. Yes, it's stable, but will it stay that way if a good article review is held? I think it needs more work before such a process should begin. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

I am inviting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group in on the discussion of Move/name change/notability/merge discussion on New England Institute of Religious Research Currently PelleSmith (talk · contribs) and Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) seem to have reached a roadblock in discourse with Cirt (talk · contribs). Any help would be appreciated! Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

problems with a file.

I'm having trouble uploading and svg file to wiki commons. It keeps not showing up. I've tried loading it in SVg and png, and have the same problems. Any ideas? Also, what's new on Siege...Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Godesberg siege should be okay now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pic looks good, I think. I wasn't sure what Durova was talking about. Figured we had to leave historical things the way they are. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks a lot nicer now when you look at it in magnification; the movement of the people and horses is a lot more palpable somehow. The man was a great artist; so much detail. Hope they'll go for Edit 2. --JN466 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good with books

Hi Jay, I am looking for a sample of this page , there is a bit in the book that is being claimed to support a comment and I want to check it, it is here but as yet I can't find a sample online, and ideas? Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to verify a particular piece of information, you can search for it in the book, using the basic google books search page. You can specific the book through arguments such as "inauthor:[authorname]" or "inpublisher:[publishername]". Even though google books may not show you the snippet you want in snippet view, the full text is still in google books and fully searchable (note that sometimes OCR makes small mistakes, misreading a word). So with sufficient jiggery-pokery, you can make the sentence you want appear as a google books search hit, e.g. like this: [2]. The other possibility is to check if amazon has a preview of the book (it doesn't in this case, unfortunately). Hope that helps. (If the preceding is unclear, tell me what specifically you want to verify.) --JN466 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the supported comment...In 1990, Pearson was arrested for public indecency following an incident at a public toilet in New Malden in south west London. He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100. . Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that it is not in the book. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is something related to the incident: [3][4][5] (New Maiden is conceivably an OCR error). --JN466 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, new malden is in a Virgin citation [6] that may or may not be reliable but for the location it is not really controversial, I will have a look at the way you searched for those and hopefully learn something, cool. Best regards for that Jayen. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Pleasure. --JN466 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adi Da : Using Secondary Sources

Dear Jayen466,

Thank you for your review and time making all the suggestions that need to occur to make the Adi Da article ready for GA Status. Will start the process of changing sources to include more secondary sources.

Thanks again for your time and help! Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jayen,

I was wondering how you got that Jim Lewis quote on Adi Da. Do you physically have the book or was it on the internet? I see that there is a reference to page 3 in "Religions of the World" where I think the quote on Adi Da is... but how does one access the actual page on the internet. The book is expensive so it might require scouring libraries to see if the physical books are there Thanks. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible edit-warring at Scientology controversies

I have recently found myself engaging in what could become an edit war with User:Wispanow and User:Pgreenfinch. These users have been deleting the section titled "Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany". They have both stated in the talk page and their edit summaries that they believe the section is nothing but "propaganda" and "libel". So I would like to request your comment on the matter to help reach consensus. Thank you. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --JN466 12:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I encourage you to remove your post at ANI. I appreciate that you wanted to offer some your view in solidarity with P.S., but from an outside perspective the post seems to restoke a fire that was out (or smoldering anyway). I'm not sure who "unresolved" the thread or why, but there's no admin intervention required. Just my opinion. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully it can be put to bed. Both sides of the dispute are here to improve the content. Despite having different interest and perspectives I'm optimistic that they can hash out some compromises. Some of the concerns seem to be getting addressed, so I think that's a good thing for the encyclopedia. Anyway, I hope all is well with you and that you enjoy the holiday season and have a very happy New Year. I'm excited for 2010. It seems cool. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :)) Let's hope it stays in bed. I grew concerned when I gained the impression people were playing the man rather than the ball. Regards, --JN466 18:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Polanski ANI exhaustion

re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski

FYI: I'm momentarily exhausted from most recent ANI against *me* (dismissed) brought by supporter of the SPA. (The last ANI was my first—it reached strange conclusion which will be addressed— not about POV, but text formatting and number and size of messages — note: which were required to counterbalance SPA's behavior.)

I arrived as BLP/NPOV "current events wrangler" around 10/4 and have knowledge of patterns of all participants since arrest brought influx, and article locking.

SPA ANI has devolved into content dispute, but yes there is problem highlighted by topic title. Problem may also be visible in response at ANI by SPA. Combat. If my input is needed, I'll try. But need rest from ANI. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I quite understand. ANI is often a very unedifying spectacle. --JN466 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg article

Have you had a chance to review the GA stuff on this article? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Ruth. I haven't forgotten and will soon come back to the review. Were you able to sort out the Commons problem? --JN466 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for input on Siege. I've made some tweaks. Perhaps we should work on the rest of it together, getting it ready for A/FA. I had a lot of trouble figuring out whateverschmolzen. Got the schmolzen part, but was boggled. Probably too tired. There are a lot of conflicting reports, too. I did quote Ferd's letter to Wilhelm, which was kinda cool. Article on Battle of Ostrach is at A review in MH. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that the reports conflicted quite heavily.
Last time I looked, the thing with the chapel still needed addressing in the article. Apparently the defenders took the roof off the chapel, and filled it up with earth inside, and then arranged their cannon there, making their last stand.
Have you seen the complete letter by Ferdinand? It's supposed to be in Floß, several pages of it. Unfortunately I couldn't find it in google books. Will gladly help with the article. --JN466 00:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I've not seen it, just portions. Ferd also wrote to Ernst in early January, but the letter was shorter, and portions of it were in Weyden, I think. I haven't done the chapel bit yet, 'cause I wasn't sure where it was found. I'll stick that in, and you can add the cite, or let me know where. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's in Weyden p. 43. I'll do you a verbatim translation. --JN466 00:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation of „Die Veste wurde belagert ...“, Weyden p. 43:

The fortress was laid siege to. All kinds of artillery were used from the neighbouring heights and from the plain, and still the tower bears traces of their effects, but it was all in vain; what was damaged during the day, the defenders repaired at night, and not a few enemy pieces were destroyed by their artillery. There was only one possibility left: to blow the fortress up. At Ferdinand’s command, mines were placed on the Friesdorf side, the fuse was lit on December 15, and at the same time the attackers chanced an all-out attack from the other side. Around 1 pm the major part of the building went up into the air with thundering noise; meanwhile, the Bavarians stormed the fortress, seeking to gain entry under cover of the powder smoke, ignoring the masses of stones hurled into the air, even seeking access through the latrines; and they succeeded in gaining possession of the outer ring. The defenders still denied them complete possession, having even taken the roof off the St. Michael’s Chapel in the castle’s forework and converted it into a bastion by filling it up [with earth]. It was only on December 17 that the remainder of the castle was taken, and the garrison, now dwindled to just 72 men, killed, with the exception of the commander, for whom the Abbot of Heisterbach – who had been a prisoner at the castle for some months – interceded. It was at this point that the above-mentioned foundation stone was found, on top of the connecting wall of the main gate, it is said, where it probably had been hurled by the explosion of the mines.

I am not 100% certain of what is meant by "Mauerschluss". I reckon it is probably the wall connecting the main gate to the buildings either side of it, or it might perhaps be the arch of the gate (though I think this is less likely).

I found a little more on the St. Michael's Chapel here and the role it played in the fighting: [7][8][9]: "During the 1583 siege, the castle's garrison used the chapel for defense; they took the roof off, filled the inside with soil, and placed cannon on top. As a result the chapel at first remained unusable ..." --JN466 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I only get those with snippets, and the snippets don't give us more than I've already put in. If it gives you more, add away. :) I've incorporated text from your above translation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin R. D. Shepherd AfD

Hi, I should have told you about this a while ago, sorry for not. The discussion could do with some more editors who have nothing to do with the topic adding their opinion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Cheers Smartse (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries. I've commented. --JN466 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Happy festivities

All the best to you and yours Jayen.
Have a merry Yuletide and very best wishes for 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy holidays to you, too, J. Many thanks for the card! Esowteric+Talk 16:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Have a good holiday, J, und Fröhliche Weihnachten :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Master and His Emissary

Hi J, have created a stub article of The Master and His Emissary, a book on the hemispheric functioning of the brain by Iain McGilchrist. It's only a stub as I don't have much time at the moment, so it's lacking, but thought you might like a look at it.

Hope you and yours have a great Christmas and New Year. Cheers, eric Esowteric+Talk 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eric, good to hear from you. And best wishes to you as well; been thinking of you. --JN466 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, J. Hopefully a bit better now. Tried to add it as further reading at Lateralization of brain function, but that and my sorting FR into order was reverted (diff). Despite the fact that there are 120 pages of notes and bibliography, the guy reckons it's poppsych and has no place in the article. Bah, humbug! Oh well. Will wait for the book to come and an allegedly "very positive" review from Mary Midgley in The Guardian early 2010. Esowteric+Talk 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

SSB

Good suggestion. I used the text you proposed and created the editheader. Merry Xmas.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 05:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK Mein Leben

Done, thanks ---Smerus (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. I have made some small tweaks and added an external link to the full German text. I wish the site didn't have advertising, but it is at least owned by a reputable publisher. --JN466 17:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

All the best for this holiday season and for the new year. And thanks for your kind message! Regards and best wishes. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/December&oldid=1143079218"