User talk:Jayen466

HI! IF YOU LEAVE ME A MESSAGE HERE, I WILL USUALLY ANSWER HERE, RATHER THAN ON YOUR OWN TALK PAGE, SO PLEASE CHECK BACK.

WP:ORIGINALSYN

Hi Jayen, what are thoughts on the recent revisions to the essay? Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I have made further substantial revisions to the essay. Any comments or suggestions? Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Christian sentiment

I hope I did not sound churlish - I apprecioate your comments and was just trying to clarify my own. I agree that good leads just summarize the contents, but in this case I do not htink the lead is doing that. Anyway, I do appreciate your comments on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no prob; it is kind of you to say so. Cheers, Jayen466 14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:

You'll have to ask on the Indian noticeboard. I'm going off on a long break. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jentzsch

Hi, thanks for your message. I generally agree with you about RS, but the anti-Scientology people on the Net promote this idea of "SP Hall" so much and so strongly, and since there is so much anti-Scientology fervor here on WP, I figured it wouldn't be a problem. After all, Wikipedia's Scientology articles are far from balanced or neutral, so why not just put this additional claim about SP Hall since practically everything else claimed on the Net is assumed to be true. Anyway, that the source is not considered to be reliable (and I hope that this is widely held here, and not just by you) is heartening.

I heard about the ArbCom, but I highly doubt it will be able to fix any problems because there is a rampant systemic bias against Scientology throughout Wikipedia and the Net. I've tried to fix problems where I've found them, but dealing with the anti-Scientology crowd is extremely difficult. Laval (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the evidence

Apology graciously accepted. I do appreciate the secondary sources you added, but at the same time I still wanted to get some further input on the sourcing matter from other editors. It's good for progress when you have more eyeballs on article. ←Spidern→ 13:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)