Hey! I just wanted to let you know that we got a summary of The Rise and Decline paper in the signpost. Thanks for giving me a push. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 15:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great, I'll wend my way over there to look it up. Thanks for the note! JN466 17:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hi. Given recent experiences at WM:UK, I'm very concerned that the proposed new m:thematic organisation's bylaws are a sensible defense against undue influence from commercial, quack and any other conflicting interests. Can you think of some names with clue and experience I should ask to review the discussions before the bylaws are cut in stone? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. JN466 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, I saw the template you added to Tahir Shah and also the talk page note about peacock terms and link farm. Regarding the peacock terms, it's perhaps better if an uninvolved editor went through the article. Regarding the link farm, would it be okay or better to create one or more list pages and link to the list/s in the biography, or to radically prune? It's actually quite useful to have the lists as a centralized resource, though I quite see your point. Maybe reply on the talk page rather than here. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 07:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of the "historical background" section in History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance? I didn't touch it, but it seems reasonably balanced. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Parts of it are badly written and punctuated, but it does seem a balanced overview and resonates quite well with stuff I have read before. I am no expert however. JN466 23:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At a glance I can't help but thinking the Further Reading and See Also should be carefully trimmed. Also, is that proper to put things in title caps like "Early modern Europe witness" and " Persecution of Christians"? Corporate 20:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to talk page stalker. :) Quite possibly so; I only looked briefly at the historical background section. JN466 01:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Bo Ningen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You really are shameless. "Run[ning] another 14 over the coming fortnight"? Nobody has suggested that, as you know perfectly well. Prioryman (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This may interest you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that most of the Gibraltar DYK articles were made by Anne (ACP2011), who (as you guys have already determined) has nothing to do with WMUK and certainly doesn't have any sort of COI issue with Gibraltar. So Anroth's suggestion is rather fruitless. Silverseren^C 16:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you commented on the short guide to COI. I've started a rewrite of the main guideline at WP:Conflict of interest/draft and would appreciate input and collaboration. My goal is to tighten it up significantly and make a clear distinction between a conflict of interest, and problematic COI editing. Gigs (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am pressed for time, but will look in when I get a chance. Cheers, AndreasKolbe JN466 13:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, this was published yesterday: Why women fade into the background on Wikipedia: An edit-a-thon to correct the lack of entries for female scientists highlights a deeper problem with women and Wikipedia. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds interesting. Best, AndreasKolbe JN466 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Momento has just removed much of Wnt's constructive edit [1]. I would like this to be discussed at the DR page if appropriate. Apparently I can't comment 'prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments'. Could you do this please? PatW (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you and I have different angles to paid editing; but one thing that sticks in my throat is leaving DYK wide open as a quick and dirty channel for paid articles. How long till this morphs into a DYK scandal in the press? Tony (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I have several entirely contradictory and unsettled views on paid editing, and they partly depend on Wikipedia's ability to ensure fair coverage.

1. From a Wikipedia public relations point of view, paid editing should be forbidden, period. Jimbo is right on that: it undermines public confidence. Even if it is something like WP:Communicate OER, which is just the thin end of the wedge.
2. From a BLP point of view, what to tell a person whose number 1 Google hit is an anonymously authored hatchet job, and who finds it impossible to navigate the vast thicket of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? As long as Wikipedia lacks a truly customer-friendly, effective and empathic complaints system that individuals and organisations can use, I cannot morally judge defamation victims for paying someone to try and clean up the mess, nor can I judge the paid editor who does so.
3. Pragmatically, paid editing is perfectly fine as long as the editor is open about it on their user page, edits under their real name, and makes an honest attempt to comply with policy. Pseudonymous editors often have strong opinions and hidden motivations that are even more powerful than a financial conflict of interest. What matters for any editor is whether their output is neutral.

I share your concern and frustration with DYK. I doubt anything will change until there is a scandal in the press about it. That Salon piece is better than most; a couple of minor misunderstandings, but the author has understood the big picture IMO. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding DIY or paid editing, I've created a number of articles about perfectly notable academics or books away from the mainstream that have been hanging around without an article for a number of years. In many cases I don't think anyone would have bothered to create the article, so I wouldn't blame such folk for doing a DIY job or paying someone to do it for them. Otherwise, it might never happen, or at least no time soon. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)