Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that you are very interested in NRMs, particularly those which have been called "cults", and ensuring that the content in relevant articles is as fair and objective as possible. Right now, I honestly believe that, for better or worse, some of the worst content we have regarding groups alleged to be cults is related to Falun Gong, which might also be one of the most frequently discussed, and probably most persecuted, out there.

We do have a separate work group for the topic, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, but, as I think you can see, we really don't have much to show for it. We have maybe 30 articles, although I think we could reasonably fairly easily have several more.

One of the problems with the group is that, for better or worse, many or most people willing to contribute to the subject are either strongly pro or anti Falun Gong. Many are practitioners, who have been told by Master Li in an Ottawa conference (I think - I'll have to look it up) that the only way they can achieve "consummation" is by actively working for Falun Gong in this world.

Our own Master Jimbo fairly regularly mentions that one of our points of pride, justifiably, is that we have not allowed the PRC to influence us. Unfortunately, with or without that influence, much of the content is still pretty poor.

I am going to spend a bit of time developing some of the peripheral articles, but have found in the past that many or most of the others involved in much of the content have fairly serious POV problems, some because of the reasons above. I myself, at this point, am very symphathetic to the practitioners, and even (this surpises me) somewhat sympathetic to the PRC, to the extent that I can be sympathetic with totalitarian bastards, anyway. And I know that many of the active FG editors have come to conclusions about me to some degree or another. I very much think that your involvement, both given your (assumed) possible perspective, and the quality of your input, would be very welcome. Anyway, just a thought. Hope you give it some consideration. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I was involved in bringing the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article to FA, and have worked on some of the other articles in the topic area, so I'm familiar with some of the issues and editors involved. I also have a couple of books on the group on my bookshelf. Happy to help out where needed. Cheers, --JN466 17:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, and I acknowledge that you might very justifiably consider my opinions on this rather suspect, I think maybe the articles in Nova Religio, particularly the special issue on Falun Gong, might be among the most useful. Granted, they are several years old, but aside from a few books there hasn't been that much broad-based material published by major and/or academic presses on FG since then. Also, I think that they are all now currently available through the ProQuest databank. I myself haven't seen at least a few of the relevant books, particularly the most current one, but I am going to try to consult them as well. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen466. I saw you post that a wiki editor admitted to be an editor at this http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man publication - which wiki editor was that, could you provide the diff for me please. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement was made by an IP: [1] / [2]. --JN466 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I have reviewed your nomination for Mangrove restaurant at Template:Did you know nominations/Mangrove restaurant and I have a quick request before I approve it. Could you see my comments at the nomination page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, thanks for the review. I agree with your point, and have made some changes to the article in line with your comments. Please review. Cheers, --JN466 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Proposed_compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a major error on my part. jorgenev 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --JN466 00:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you that I have opened a discussion at Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Recent revert, verifiability and WP:Weasel words per WP:BRD following your revert to the article here. I reviewed the initial removal of the text, and although not then reviewing the reference, thought it was more NPOV and far less WEASEL than the reinstated text. I would, however, be grateful if you could also comment on the matter. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)