Jayen, could you kindly review the Kilgour Matas article in userspace, when you can pull out a few minutes. I have updated the lede a bit, and also added a couple of news sources to the "Response" section. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dilip, thanks for letting me know of the update. I'll review and get back to you. --JN466 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, my email is dilip.rajeev@gmail.com. I can make the improvements you pointed, before tomorrow end. Also, if you come across some additional good sources, kindly let me know, or, if you can find time, please add the info to the article. Thanks again, Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen.

What do you think about this Hawley Harvey Crippen article? Me and User:TFOWR are thinking as a project to raise it up to FA. Would you like to join in or if your busy just oversee the improvements? Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I am definitely up for helping with proofreading, copyediting, ref formating and the like. I am currently still busy with work, and have to finish work on another article (Siege of Godesberg (1583)) first, but once that is done, I can also help researching sources. --JN466 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. I am also fairly occupied in real life at the moment so there is no hurry. I will let TFOWR know and we can look to reviewing the article to determine what will be required. Regards and happy holiday Spring bank holiday. Best wishes. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Working the weekend, I'm afraid. And the bank holiday. :) No rest for the wicked, as they say. --JN466 00:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

'ello, all!

Just to add a "me, too!" to the "busy-until-after-the-long-weekend" comments. Glad you're both up for it, it's one of those articles that surprises me it's not got the FA treatment already - first arrest by telegraph, etc etc. Anyway, glad we're all on board, and looking forward to working together soon! TFOWR^propaganda 10:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

this might be the illusive volume 2. I cannot tell. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the title, it sounds like it could be both volumes. Cf. [1]. Interesting. --JN466 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's got 812 pages. If this is the first volume (it doesn't mention Godesberg, at least not in that spelling), then it can't be both volumes, because the first volume has 781 pages already, according to google books. It could be the first volume again, with a preface added. --JN466 23:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazon listing: [2], $30. Still no idea if it is vol. 1 or vol. 2, though. --JN466 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, I am pretty sure this is the first volume that is available for free here: [3]. These fly-by-night publishers (note the cover for the thing!) just jump on the bandwagon when google releases a scan of an out-of-copyright work. --JN466 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

We seem to have once again an outbreak of people adding their favorite lesser-known Sufi saints to this section. I deleted the last two additions , referencing the previous Talk page discussion in my edit summary. The guy who added one of the saints reverted this edit, calling it "intended vandalism". Wonder if you'd care to once again take a look at the additions, and see what you feel?

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayen, for taking the time to look into this. Much appreciated! --Sarabseth (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, any time. I suggest we just always refer to google books in these cases. If there are thousands of books covering the person, they go in, and if there aren't, they don't. --JN466 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, Just to let you know I have made the additions you suggested to the Kilgour-Matas page in userspace. Thank you, Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

this looks good. are we ready to go? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bear with me. I will still put in some material from Ennen, Potthoff and Floß about the course of the Siege. I'll do it today. --JN466 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No hurry. I just figured neither of us had worked on it in a while, and wondered if it was done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I found Dr. Floss's name, so I added it. I don't think we need the publication date after his name, since we only have one source by him. I couldn't find the first Potthoff mention. i like the details you've found! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed a number of the superfluous publication years. As you say, we only need them for disambiguation. The reason I mentioned Floß and Potthoff by name in that one sentence was that what they said seemed to contradict Ferdinand's letter, written 15 December, who said they'd reached the outer wall the day prior (Dec 14), not Dec. 6. But I think it is okay as it is now ... --JN466 22:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

The Request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat 5, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

TFOWR 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --JN466 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Was trying to figure out which Wellington (School/college/academy) belongs to this child in Ramsey Weston Phipps when I ran into this article: Wellington School, Bebington. Wasn't there some character creating info about Fogg that was bogus? auntieruth (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There was, but that was Hannibal Fogg. J P Fogg seems to be bona fide: [4] --JN466 03:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Xeno, much appreciated. --JN466 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:FIFA World Cup.svg

England and Germany football rivalry- > > Germany and England could I hear meet in the next phase. Sunday at Free State Stadium best of luck (not) no pressure Off2riorob (talk)

:) Yes, Sunday 3pm. 2010_FIFA_World_Cup_schedule. Looking forward to it. Should be an interesting match. England deserved to win in 1990; perhaps better luck this time. --JN466 12:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Game on, best of luck J, Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess your wish came all-too true. Payback for '66, I suppose. :). Good match. And wishing England better luck in the second half. --JN466 14:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Referee, you can't be serious. Tch, you couldn't make it up, haha. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

how are we doing? I've created some historian articles, for the links. Floss. Ennen, Weyden. auntieruth (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the text is more or less there. I still have to do the graphic ... will try to do it this weekend. --JN466 07:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, J! Esowteric+Talk 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure! --JN466 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)