Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jayen466: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:21, 10 April 2012 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits The Signpost: 09 April 2012: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 16:11, 10 April 2012 edit undoLyncs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users505 edits ADAM: new sectionNext edit →
Line 112: Line 112:
</div> </div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0255 --> <!-- EdwardsBot 0255 -->

== ADAM ==

Nice essay. Nice acronym :-) --] (]) 16:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:11, 10 April 2012

Siege of Godesberg The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman Idries Shah Scientology in Germany The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death Andreas Grünschloß Anna Murray-Douglass Bolton Brown Bo Ningen Bruce High Quality Foundation Dick Anthony Frank Crichlow Frightful Cave Hilya Īhām INFORM (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements) Ivy Alvarez James A. Beckford John A. Saliba Journal of Contemporary Religion Lorne L. Dawson Magnus Manske Mangrove Restaurant Marimba Ani Maureen Corrigan Peter B. Clarke Race Today Red Barked Tree Remi Kanazi Rosie Vanier Swim ~ The Lazarus Effect (film) The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman The Stool Pigeon (newspaper) PetitPiton.JPG Barnstars


User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.


Misplaced Pages ad for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
Misplaced Pages adsfile infoshow another – #178


Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

























RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024



Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42



This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.
Click this button.
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Personshttp://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Unreferenced_BLPs&subcats=1&d=2
Reference this BLP.

Categories and sources

Hello. Since our discussion was getting beyond the proper scope of the ANI thread, I'm continuing it here. I hope that's okay. I believe that the reliability of sources involving the actor's statement was in question. Surely you're not suggesting that a PR announcement sourced to shaky sources trumps multiple reliable sources. The way I see it, verifiability needs to be at the core of everything we do around here, and nowhere is that more true than at BLP articles. For the purposes of WP categorization, it might be possible to "put the genie back in the bottle," but we should weigh the relative merit of conflicting sources before making such decisions. If the category in question were a negative one, it would be reasonable to consider potential harm to the subject when assigning weight, but that wasn't the case here. The category, which cannot reasonably be construed as negative, posed no potential harm to the subject. Rivertorch (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Jayen466: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Xavexgoem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

This is a note to let the main editors of Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 3, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing on 23 January 2001. The incident is disputed: the official Chinese press agency, Xinhua News Agency, stated that five members of Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement, set themselves on fire to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. The Falun Dafa Information Center stated the incident was a hoax staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners. The incident received international news coverage, and video footage was broadcast later in the People's Republic of China by China Central Television. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, or the self-immolators "new or unschooled" practitioners, among others. The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong, and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Jayen466. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates & More

Not sure if you noticed it recently, but user:fasttimes68 is still harassing Stephanie Adams on other pages relating to her (see his "contributions" at Stephanie, July 24, Playboy Playmate, a list of authors which should very well include her since she is mentioned on here as being one, etc., etc.) and he seems now to have an agenda of trying to have other playmate pages removed. This seems to have been a problem for many years now with this individual. It really needs to stop. 71.183.42.86 (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Images yet again

I can't find the place in edit mode, but there is really no contradiction - the usage of illuminated MS was really pretty similar in East and West. There's no point continuing discussion on that page as no one is following it. What a phenomenal waste of time all this has been! Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there. :) I am sure if they had locked us into a room, we would have had a mutually agreeable result in a fraction of the time. (And with a far more enjoyable process. One could have had a beer over it.) JN466 00:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

ADAM

Nice essay. Nice acronym :-) --Lyncs (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)