User talk:Jayen466

Wikipedia ads file info – show another – #3 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 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0 [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024 [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024 Mzajac 7 May 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024 Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024 Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Click this button. Reference this BLP. Muhammad The basic problem with your "due weight" argument is that Muhammad was a real historical figure who would be important even if there had been no Muslims since the 7th century. What Muslims think or don't think about him isn't even a proper focus of the article – these belong in Islam – and to the extent it's been one seriously mars the article, which should be a biography. As it happens, these depictions were created precisely to accompany – you guessed it – biographies of Muhammad.67.168.135.107 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Well, these were biographies written by Muslims, and among biographies written by Muslims those that include figurative images represent a very small proportion indeed. Muslims generally prefer calligraphy to images. So if we are presenting Muslim depictions of Muhammad, we need to place most weight on the most ubiquitous type of depiction (i.e. calligraphy). Cheers, --JN466 17:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Well, calligraphy isn't a depiction. I would agree that they would not belong on an article Muslim reverence for Muhammad, or for that matter on Islam, for precisely the reasons you give. What I'm trying to point out is that Muhammad isn't in any way an Islamic concept; contemporary Muslim beliefs are at best an epilogue to the discussion of his life.67.168.135.107 (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC) My view is that if we're using mostly Islamic art to illustrate the article (which we do), then we should use typical examples of Islamic art. That's what reliable sources on Muhammad tend to do as well. Cheers, --JN466 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Justa note... You're doing a heck of a job @ Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Keep it up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) --JN466 12:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC) That's a very nice use of your principle. And I see Jimbo's on board. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 21 November 2011 News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered Discussion report: Much ado about censorship WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals Featured content: The best of the week Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Did you know - that the word jayen in Thai means 'calm heart'? As you have been to Thailand, you probably do. Used as expression on its own, it means 'Keep cool!' or 'Calm down!'. If you ever need any help or advice, instead of going straight to MetaWiki, you can always try asking me first on my Wikipedia talk page. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I can probably point you to the right place. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks! It's a name worth living up to. :) My Thai never progressed much beyond Sawatdee khrap, but we did make luk chup the other day! As for the templates, I thought I heard Sue mention recently that there was a Foundation initiative underway to look at the wording and use of talk page templates, because they can come across as impersonal and unfriendly, especially to new users. So I was wondering whether there was a central wiki page where those discussions are happening. Best, --JN466 01:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC) There is indeed here. However, the WMF is involved because of the technical implementations required for the trial - the actual initiative is a Wikipdia one and I am involved in the trial. The actual wording of the templates being used in the trial is discussed here at Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I omitted to include the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Testing. Note however, that the current project concerns only user warnings, and not general information templates such as those used by AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Kudpung. Will have a look. --JN466 04:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Following sources vis-a-vis image use Hi Jayen, you will probably be able to guess which discussion I'm referring to. I'm not able to figure out a good place to interject this comment, although you can feel free to copy it appropriately: Your suggestion that image use should be guided by prior usage in reliable sources is partially valid, in that we should always strive to follow the sources, however I feel that it fails to recognize the realities of building articles here, as opposed to the more traditional "editorial" environment which an online encyclopedia supplants. It is true that older and especially printed sources exercise restraint and selection in choice of images. Partly this is due to observation of "customer bias" as noted in that discussion. Partly too this is due to page-oriented editing choice, in that images should not overwhelm the text on any one page - we face the same choices here with "narrow waist" left and right-aligned images, image galleries, etc. but since we all have different browsers and screen resolutions, our concept of what a "page" of this encyclopedia looks like will vary reader by reader, so we can't adhere to print-publishing principles of "one or two per page" or such-like. Additionally, and I think quite important, is that when considering the methods by which reliable sources have chosen in the past to select images, those sources have always had a major cost consideration. My (admittedly non-expert) understanding of typesetting is that including a colour plate is a big deal indeed. Black-and-white pages are run through a very simple print process where printing plate = printed page. Colour representations are much more complex, other than a simple green box around something, true-colour images require 4 passes (CMYK) through a press and even the most minor alignment errors can destroy the image visibility. The pages with colour then arrive as tip-ins to the collated document, with the attendant complications. Past technology thus dictated bias in image selection, on the lines of "as few as we can muster". Also, since almost every external source to date has been a commercial work, there is also the issue of needing to either pay a commercial photographer or license an image right from someone else. Wikipedia is somewhat unique in having access to a virtually unlimited pool of volunteer image acquisition. So long as those acquired images are free of non-commercial restrictions and/or have valid usage rationales, we can reproduce them at very close to zero cost. So there is a fundamental breakage of the previous paradigms of image inclusion. This is not to say that your position is totally wrong, and I'm certainly not saying that we should indiscriminately include every image possible, editorial judgement will always be required. However I'm not comfortable with your suggestion that prior image use in reliable sources should be anything other than a secondary/contributing factor in selection here, since the publishing environment is radically different in this online work. Regards! Franamax (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks. What you say is true of certain genres of books (some academic books have no illustrations at all, for such reasons as you mention). On the other hand, consider that there have always been richly illustrated books; that even sparsely illustrated books containing just a dozen pictures give an indication of the most important types of imagery; that magazines and newspapers are routinely CMYK from beginning to end nowadays; and that more and more of the news sources we cite are actually news websites in exactly the same situation as we are in terms of not having to consider printing costs, and of being able to include audiovisual media. Even television programmes are reliable secondary sources and can inform image choice. On most topics, there is enough imagery floating about in secondary sources to make out what is a mainstream representation and what is not, and we should strive to make our presentation consistent with that. It's certainly a somewhat less exact science than composing a text summarising reliable sources, but the aim should be the same. Cheers, --JN466 03:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC) DYK for Frightful Cave Orlady (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 00:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Dear Jayen466 - Sorry to write to you out of the blue, but you have been the only person supporting me in relation to the problems on my Wiki BLP. It is seriously damaging stuff, and I need some advice on how I can help matters - if you go to my own personal website you can email me from the bottom of my home page - I'd like to have a confidential discussion with you if I may - Dr Abbas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.2.210 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC) New film in the pipeline Hi J, this may perhaps be of interest to you? Matrix producer plans Muhammad biopic. Regards, eric. Esowteric+Talk 09:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Indeed it is. :) Thank you very much. --JN466 13:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC) WT:V Would you consider withdrawing your message until after the 3 admins resolve the RfC? Editors have been trying to calm things down while we're waiting, and I'm concerned your message might stir the pot. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry. I hadn't followed discussions on the talk page these last few days, and hadn't meant it to be provocative. I would have withdrawn it gladly, but can't now, as there have been responses. --JN466 11:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC) That's OK. Seems like it didn't cause any problems, knock on wood. BTW, I see there's some excitement elsewhere on your talk page and may I say that there is Bullshit in Wikipedia and it is highly regarded, as evidenced by the ratings at the bottom of that article's page. In fact, it did a lot better than some science articles I worked on. Oh well. One can only try.  : ) Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC) --JN466 18:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC) However, I must confess that I removed some bullshit from Manure.[1] : ( Shamefully yours, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I can only commend you for your honesty in confessing your misdeeds, but I am nevertheless truly shocked. Just shocking. Diminishing the great store of our most prized content that many have laboured tirelessly to compile! --JN466 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) [2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you. --JN466 23:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Canvassing Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Tahir Abbas. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Leaving a message on Jimbo's talk page will help to get more eyes on the situation. I left one on Scott MacDonald's a few days ago, as he's widely acknowledged in Wikipedia as a BLP expert, but he declined to respond. For the sake of openness, I also e-mailed HJMitchell, the admin who protected the article, and WhatamIdoing, another Wikipedian I respect, for their views and advice. Regards, --JN466 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Bullshit. You tried Scott MacDonald because you expected he would support your approach; likewise Jimbo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry I've angered you. I just want to be sure we are getting this one right. The small number of editors at the talk page are not representative of the wider community. They include several editors and IPs who have made very few edits to Wikipedia outside this topic area. --JN466 16:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC) You have your own vision of "right", and you're pulling out all the stops to push it. Again I say bullshit; it's not as if I've never encountered Scott Macdonald before -- it's perfectly obvious what you were trying to accomplish with that one. The right venue for bringing this to the attention of the community was BLPN. I had no trouble at all with the fact that you took it there. I even kept my mouth shut when you went to Scott. But now you've gone too far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Mariusmw Hi, Jay, I reported Mariusmw at WP:AN3 just before you did. You might want to revert your report and add anything to mine if there's something you want to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I just noticed and thought I was seeing double ... I'll add the additional diff and comment to your report. --JN466 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC) intercession thx for your intercession. Do tell me when a newbie is getting bullied, I'd try and find time to help. You have found a way to make me feel better, Thanks. Do tell your wife that I intend to give her all my wages for the last twelve months from wikimedia (for my fancy title) by way of my apology. Sorry, I meant to say, I hope she is successful. I was joking with Sue that we ought to create a large template to put on the talk pages of people who use unfriendly templates. That's public record as that UK board meeting was web streamed. So ironic that I was then found guilty of that crime. wiki love 04:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC) My pleasure. And we look forward to buying you that beer. :) --JN466 04:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Jayen Would you mind giving me a succinct statement of the problem you see with controversial image use here? I'll come back and ask about solutions later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that. The problem you're identifying is we often end up with insensitive imagery. Why is that a problem? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC) There are several ways of answering that. They include the following: It causes ill-will towards this project, for no good reason (i.e. for nothing that could be said to have been done in the service of WP:V and WP:NPOV), so it's self-harming. If our illustrations depart from standards in reliable sources, we don't look like a reliable source. That makes readers take the project less seriously as a reference source, reducing potential good-will and support that would otherwise be available. Imagery that is needlessly and incongruously offensive reduces the number of people willing to stay long enough on a page to read and contribute to it, limiting both the project's readership (and thus its educational impact), and the number of people willing to become contributors (whose numbers are declining). Insensitive imagery that is not justifiable from the point of view of our basic content policies causes avoidable and needless emotional distress in readers. --JN466 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you. Would you like to, or do you mind if I, add this to User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Jayen466? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Google Books snippet view Hi J, There's a guy editing Mughal-related articles using bare URLs to Google Books snippet view. Have advised him about using citations and link rot. In the latest case, a query in a book "X says" produces 2 snippets out of maybe 90 mentions. I notice that some of his edits have article text about say army commanders and visible snippets returned are about something different entirely, like nuts, dried fruit and prostitutes :) The editor has been accused of fakery, but is it possible that the search results returned to different users have some random element to them (which would make google snippet view even less verifiable) ? Do you see what I see here User talk:Mughal Lohar#Aurangzeb, 27 November 2011, for example? Regards, eric. Esowteric+Talk 19:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) It's often possible to find a text match in a Google Books search which is shown as bold text in the Google Books search listing. However, if you click on the search hit and the book has snippet view only, the snippet shown will only be the nearest one available to the relevant passage that Google Books found. Sometimes you're lucky that your search string is in a displayable snippet, sometimes not. Generally, it doesn't make sense to link to a snippet display if the snippet doesn't show the relevant text. The book may well contain a relevant passage on that same page though. However, there is another thing that has to be said: if you haven't got the physical book, and you don't have a Google preview spanning several full pages in context, it is quite risky to add anything to a Wikipedia article just based on having seen a snippet, either in the Google Books search listing or in snippet view. Context may be all-important (the book may quote a discredited theory, or you may fail to realise that the whole passage is intended as humour, etc.). So it's not a way of working that should ever be used, except in the most straightforward cases (like finding a birth date in a reputable dictionary of biography with snippet view). These days, Amazon (linked to from Google Books) has Look Inside enabled for many books. Using both Google Books and Amazon in tandem is often worthwhile. --JN466 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Many thanks, Jayen. I knew you'd know the score. Esowteric+Talk 20:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Can I quote you publicly on that, or is it for my eyes only, Jayen? Esowteric+Talk 21:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I'd say the same thing elsewhere, and it's not just my view. You are welcome to link to this or quote it. Best, --JN466 21:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC) You're a star, Jayen. Have copied to user talk page, article talk page and AN/I. Esowteric+Talk 09:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC) I've just noticed there's another ongoing discussion about Snippet View at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Snippet_Views_-_Using_the_Result_Line_of_the_search_.2C_instead_of_the_Snippet_View_itself, if you're interested. Cheers, --JN466 13:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC) I saw your comments above quoted at ANI, and I was just coming here to suggest you join in the discussion at WT:CITE, but I see you've found it, though you don't seem to be interested in posting there? FWIW, I think it would be good if you gave your opinion there as well. My view is that if something does come up in snippet view, it is best to leave readers to search for it themselves. i.e. get a hard copy of the book, read the material in context, quote where needed, give the page number, and so on, and then, as a courtesy. consider providing other editors and readers with a link that lands them at the summary of the book which includes the "search inside this book" option. And then let other editors and readers make their own way from that point on. Essentially saying "if you want to verify this, either get a hard copy or do your own search". I'm very wary in general of linking to search results. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Your name I keep calling you Jay. Should I be calling you Jayen? I hate getting people's names wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Either is fine. My actual name is Andreas. --JN466 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Didn't see that one coming, although it makes sense that you would have a German name based on your userboxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Doubt... I never doubted you or your intentions,[3] regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with your opinions. Just wanted to stop by and let you know that. :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC) --JN466 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC) AfC templates: yes! Hi Jayen466, Just saw the thread you started on AfC talk. Steven and I were actually just talking about running an AfC template test! I responded there, but I also wanted to actively recruit you for our template testing task force. We could always use more ideas for new experiments and help with template redesign. And let me take this opportunity to say that it was great meeting you and DracoEssentialis in London, and I hope to see you both again IRL soon! :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks Maryana, and likewise! I will join that task force. Best, --JN466 20:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 November 2011 News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle Featured content: The best of the week Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC) DYK nomination of Īhām and Remi Kanazi Regarding your nominations of Īhām and Remi Kanazi: Per the DYK rules "5. Review requirement" as you have more than five DYKs, you are required to review another nomination for each of your nominations. Until this is done, your nominations will not be able to be approved. Harrias talk 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Hi, thanks for letting me know. I hadn't kept up to speed with the recent rule changes. --JN466 23:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar This explanation of BLP policy is one of the best I have seen. You have it exactly right. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)