Jump to content

User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi J, yahoo! have now pulled the plug on their free sites at Geocities. There's now a deadlink in ref #1 at Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah and maybe others, though there's always the Gurdjieff site.

See Talk:Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah#Moore reference deadlink. Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 11:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Convert ft&in default-rounding

Talk-page: Template_talk:Convert#Change_to_default_rounding_ft-inches

Hi. Wikid77 here. I am just sending this message to notify and thank the recent users who spent time to document problems in Convert rounding. The precision HAS BEEN FIXED, today, for feet-and-inches, as noted in the talk-page. There are over 19,250 articles being reformatted, and many will show the improvement because they use the default-rounding levels. Next week, I will try to fix some other rounding problems as well. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Godesburg v Godesberg

I'm not sure there was a distinction in 1500...the town grew around the fortress. Anyway, I made a stub, and you or I can add to the article at some point. I figured that the presence of the article might make obvious that the town wasn't being redlinked, but the article on the siege was. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there was such a distinction. Burg und Berg are two (probably) cognate words with different meanings, which were already separate in Old High German (500–1050 AD):
  • OHG bur[u]g = castle, town, "borough";
  • OHG berg = hill, mountain, mound, "barrow".
Of course, castles are usually on hills, and the resulting towns and cities sometimes ended up with the ending -berg, and sometimes with the ending -burg. Matters are not helped by the fact that the English pronunciation of these German endings makes them homophones (which, of course, they aren't in German, any more than borough and barrow are homophones in English). --JN466 14:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • yes of course a distinction linguistically, but not in terms of "where are you from..." people in the town took refuge in the "burg" and those in the "burg" shopped in the town at the bottom of the "berg" Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the town, which existed before the castle, was named after the Wuodenesberg/Wotansberg (Wotan's mountain; it was a Ubian cult site). The Godesburg was built in 1210, and named Godesburg, after the town. So let's keep the spelling of town and castle separate; it matches both historical and contemporary German usage. --JN466 16:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I've got "the" before the usage of ...burg, which will help in distinguishing it in English. I also explained it in a note. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
did you finish looking through the article? the "review" period is winding down. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?

That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Requesting Move. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I nodded off there. --JN466 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Documents from The National Archives

My understanding is that images of the documents are not sufficiently "free" to be placed in Commons, though there is encouragement to upload them to Flickr with appropriate tags, and thre's even a National Archives group that images can be added to. It's rather outside my job area though, so any queries are best addressed to the contacts given on the webpages that Moonriddengirl linked to, there's also some info at http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Help:Use_and_re-use_of_images

So far as trying to find documents is concerned, FO 371 and FO 395 indicate two series of Foreign Office documents. You can find more info on FO 395 at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=6385&CATLN=3 if you then click on "browse from here" you'll see indivdual documents within the series, with the dates applicable. This seems to be correspondence from various embassies, so you'll ahve to work out which embassy is most likely to be relevant as well. You should then be able to follow a similar route for FO 371, just enter that into the reference box. David Underdown (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think what I said about uploading to Flickr only applies when it's a user of the Archvies who has personally photographed a record. If the scans have been provided by TNA, I think the restrictions are tighter. David Underdown (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay. The thing is, when I enter the name in the search field, I only get results from FO 371, dating to 1947 (those are the documents I have), and nothing from FO 395, which the cited author stated also contained relevant info. Do you know what would be the most likely explanation? --JN466 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it that it only finds record if the keywords are in the title? --JN466 19:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the keyword search depends on how detailed teh catalogue descriptions are. Otherwise, as I say, it would jsut have to be a bit of guesswork as to whic embassy would be writing about him at the relevant times. David Underdown (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of it would certainly have been Uruguay, and searching for Uruguay brings up lots of FO 371 hits: [1]. No FO 395 in those search results though. Is it feasible to view such records in person in Kew? Presumably "FO 395" would be reams and reams and reams of paper ... Or is there a more precise subject matter index in the NA itself, to narrow such a search down a bit? I appreciate your help. --JN466 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Browsing through FO 395 (eg http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/browser.asp?CATLN=3&CATID=6385&GPE=False&DOWN=TRUE&MARKER=301000&MARKERSCN=), it looks as if the files are organised under groups of countries, Uruguay would presumably come under "America (General)". I know there is an effort under way to improve the indexing of some the Foreign Office files - I'm not sure if this is one of the series involved. All the records can of course be viewed in person (assuming they are "Open" records), there may be some "supplementary finding aids" in the reading rooms as well, but as I'm IT staff, I don't ave much involvement with the records directly. David Underdown (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

cite journal vs. citation

Regarding this edit... I noticed a few weeks ago that the Harv links were broken in all articles where I've used them, but they used to work in the past, even with {{cite journal}} and stuff. I don't know where along the lines things changed, but apparently someone modified the citation templates and broke the part of the code that generates the #CITEREF anchors in all but the {{Citation/core}} template; I'm not familiar enough with the template to mess around with it (although I presume it has something to do with how the specific templates pass parameters into Citation/core... maybe someone changed the names internally without fixing things in the other templates, I dunno). Do you know if there's a discussion going on anywhere about fixing this? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is actually. I think someone wanted to fix something, and elected to do it in such a way that the templates would not work for several weeks or months. Something about preventing html errors. I see if I can find it again. --JN466 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I just did some experimenting in my sandbox. This (to Citation/core) is the edit that broke things, in late September (i'm surprised it's that recent, I felt like it had been broken for longer). Versions before that all work fine. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant. Skomorokh's user name enabled me to find the discussion page where his edits and mine intersected :) The discussion was here. Cheers, --JN466 21:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I just found it right after I messaged Skomorokh... I'm working on a fix, making {{cite journal}} and others set the |ref= parameter to "harv" by default (so that people don't have to manually add |ref=harv to every citation). If it starts breaking things in some unforeseen way, feel free to revert. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Brill. Learnt something again. --JN466 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I had the link wrong above (now fixed). The discussion was here: Template talk:Citation/core#We should never render invalid HTML --JN466 21:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Jan Fishan Khan

Hi J, User talk:Alefbe has moved Jan Fishan Khan to Jan-Fishan Khan with the edit comment that "Jan-Fishan" is one word. Looks like the old colonial sources use "Jan Fishan Khan" What do you think? Thanks, eric Esowteric+Talk 09:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at google books, there seems to be a clear majority for the spelling without hyphen. --JN466 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps ping him on his talk page though. It seems he speaks Pashtun, so he may have a point. --JN466 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought the editor looked the knowledgeable type. He may well have a point. Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of the hits with the hyphen are from Idries Shah's books. (Hell, it suddenly seems there are a lot more sources on JFK in google books than there used to be ... or is it just me?) --JN466 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought there were a lot, too. Got a project on the go at the moment, though I have time to change To J-FK in that article and associated articles I've worked on, if you like? Esowteric+Talk 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA blurb proposal for Inner German border

Could you possibly have a look at the Main Page blurb that I've proposed at WP:TFAR#November 9? I'd appreciate any copyediting advice you might have. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rushbrook Williams

hi jayen, i've created a new entry for L.F. Rushbrook Williams, because none existed

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/L._F._Rushbrook_Williams

and i'm being told it has "multiple issues". it seems very staightforward to me, but could you take a look at it and see what the problem is?

Jlburton (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) jlburton

Welcome to Wikipedia! These are our "new article" patrols; they like to give upstarts a little hazing. I'll have a look ... --JN466 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


thanks, jayen. i see you cleaned it up.

i had no idea wikipedia had so many rules and regulations. definitely discourages one from adding much new.

Jlburton (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC) jlburton

It is not too bad. It can be absorbed over time, and after a while it becomes second nature, like shifting gears in a car. But the experience for new people is often quite harsh; this has led to some soul-searching here in the past on how to make things more pleasant for newcomers. --JN466 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar! I seem to have quite a respectable collection now. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You deserve them. JN466 23:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

book of oriental lit

i think it should be clarified that, in the opinion of the critic, the book was 'cursory' for the 70's, not the 30's when it was originally published. i would do it myself but i don't want to step on your toes.;)

Jlburton (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

Thanks. :) Have reworded. Btw, am happy to share sources. --JN466 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


well, you certainly seem to have access to more sources than i do, although most of yours seem to be negative, lol. i guess you have access to journal contents on-line?

Jlburton (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)jl burton

That's because I'm using sources published by other people than Octagon Press. ;P JN466 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


do you have access to the archives for the journal Islamic Culture? volume 58, page 83?Jlburton (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton


can you see the rest of the review of Vartan Gregorian's book on Afghanistan here

http://www.jstor.org/pss/162655

supposedly that book talks about the Sirdar but i don't know what he says or what is said in that articleJlburton (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

I don't have JSTOR access myself, but will ask a friend for help. --JN466 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

To be honest, I don't think that I've yet heard an adequate answer to the question of why we should add the material. There are hundreds of reliable sources on the topic, so it's not about adding everything we can find in reliable sources. The article is stable and I just don't see the need to make this change. Further, your approach to the issue has been uncharacteristic of your normally proper behavior. If you want to add further material from Geaves then it's logical to first complete the discussion of Geaves as a source from last month so that we're all in agreement on the basics. There's no rush to get this bit of inforamtion into the article. Please be more patient and work through the process.   Will Beback  talk  18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks; that at least makes some kind of sense. As for the discussion on Geaves as a source on the project page, I had not received any significant response to my post time-stamped 22:32, 30 September at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat/Current_article_issues#How_to_proceed_with_Geaves. I considered the matter closed.
As to why add the material, we have a whole paragraph on his following, and while we describe the numerical strength of his following in the early days, we don't say much about it now. If the 1970s' figures are of interest, surely so are the current figures? As it is we mention the 360,000 without putting them into context. The Geaves paragraph I proposed does that. --JN466 19:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As you know, I haven't objected to using Geaves' estimate. It's the rest of the material that I think is either off-topic or excessive weight/recentism. I don't think the Geaves matter is closed at all. I suggest you say on the project page what you think the consensus is on Geaves and then let's see how much agreement there is.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Will, out of everything I proposed, you picked the smallest number you could find, 2,000, deleted what it actually signified, and dropped the rest. Are you really coming here with a straight face telling me this is "using Geaves' estimate"? To me it appeared designed to minimise the size of Rawat's following. Perhaps you are not even noticing you are doing this, but you certainly are. You are doing it in the LaRouche articles as well; Leatherstocking was not always wrong. For example, arguing that "LaRouche's presidential platform does not belong in his BLP, we have a Views article for that", while insisting that the story of that poor young bloke who died in Germany and whom LaRouche has never even met be in his BLP and half a dozen other LaRouche articles. C'est magnifique, Will, mais ce n'est pas l'encyclopédie. C'est quelque chose d'autre, and these arguments are so tedious. --JN466 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that if you should reply to this, I will not answer today. --JN466 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing exact text- I was proposing the outline for the appropriate weight. We can use any of his numbers: use the highest or say 2,000-5,000, or whatever. My argument is against devoting a whole paragraph to one source. As for LaRouche article, I'm laying out the logic for its inclusion. I didn't add the material though I did restore it when someone deleted it without discussion. As you may know, it turns out that Leatherstocking was lying from the beginning, pretending to be unaffiliated with the LaRouche movement while editing from a LaRouche office. Let's not getting tangled into that otherwise this may turn into a general investigation into each other's behavior on unrelated articles, which I don't think would be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am giving you feedback which you can listen to or ignore. If you want to comment on my editing elsewhere, you are always welcome here. --JN466 20:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I got your note after I'd already replied to your RSN posting. To put up an incomplete, and perhaps even misleading, account of a dispute and then ask that other involved editors refrain from commenting is perhaps not the best way to use noticeboards. Instead, they probably function best when the uninvolved editors are given the opportunity to see all sides of the matter.   Will Beback  talk  17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted my changes. What's the next step? Must we put it to a vote whether the Prem Rawat Foundation is WP:RS? --Gotophilk (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You can bring it up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat/Current_article_issues. But, honestly, it is okay to cite the website of Rawat's foundation in the article about him which mentions his foundation. The foundation's website would not be a RS in other articles, as a source for statements about other people, but there has been general agreement among editors that its use in the Prem Rawat article is covered by Wikipedia:Blp#Self-published_sources, Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source and Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources. Similar use of such sources is made in many, many other articles in Wikipedia, including featured articles. --JN466 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:GA Review

No problem. Take your time and find something that interests you, that's usually how I review (though sometimes I'll bend to the odd neglected request!). I don't think you will have any issues with the review process, but don't hesitate to ask if you do. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me?

Hi Jayen, this is a bit 'out of the blue' but I was wondering whether you could help me and a friend with our German? She would like to say: "Being overweight can make one depressed" (we're doing a topic on health issues!). Any help would be great! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Formal: "Übergewicht kann zu Depressionen führen." Normal: "Übergewicht kann einen deprimiert machen." Really informal: "Übergewicht kann einen ganz schön runterziehen." JN466 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you are a life-saver! It's nice to be able to actually check with and ask someone who speaks German as their native language; when you just don't know the structure, as I didn't then, it's hard to check it out. I'm not sure how I can return the favour, since your English is perfect...! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, any time. :) JN466 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You probably didn't think I would take up your offer so immediately, but please do tell me if it's too much, I don't want to put you out:
I have: "um Sie zu abgelten" and have been told "abgelten" is a seperable verb. I understand the premise of these, but I'm not sure how I form a subordinate around them (especially an "um... zu" one.
Should "die Massagetabelle" be "der Massagetisch" or is it okay (or none of these!)?
If you have time to help thank you. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem already solved. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual affiliations

  • John, I have little desire to discuss a source for another two months with three followers who are only here on Wikipedia to edit articles about their guru.[2]

Boy, there are times I've had thoughts like that, but I think I've avoided saying so. I've felt that doing so would not be helpful and would tend to exacerbate disputes rather than solving them. Some editors have even objected to having their religious or spiritual affiliations referred to as being a factor in editing disputes. Of course you may feel differently.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant you that dedicated followers can be as difficult to deal with as dedicated ex-followers. --JN466 17:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin R. D. Shepherd

"Hiya, I filed a COI thread ...."

This is your first communication to me (JN466, ?Jayen466). If there is a next time that you visit my page, could you please choose a less familiar greeting? Colloquial "Hi!" would be acceptable. The "-ya" adds a dissonant tone of flippancy to your formal declaration and request. Thanks. Ombudswiki (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It was meant to sound friendly, rather than flippant; but I appreciate what you're saying. Sorry. --JN466 14:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a consensus that this article should be delisted as GA. I have done this myself, but would appreciate it if you could check that I completed the procedure correctly. Thanks for your input. Simon Kidd (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing this to an amicable conclusion, and good luck with the article. As for the delisting, I'll ask User:Geometry guy, who is very involved in the GA process, to check through what you have done. Best, --JN466 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JN, it's in much better shape now. Another set of eyes? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RL is making unreasonable demands on me again. But I'll try to get round to it. JN466 18:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost on hoaxes

Hi Jayen, Thanks for your kind words. I've hit a tough patch in RL workload, so am rationed until 2 December. I wonder how topical the article would need to be (does it need to be done soon or will it stay fresh if delayed?). Tony (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say. Some of the websites have already been changed in response to events here, which are after all public, so a few of the offsite links (like the whois link with the site registration information) might not work later on as they do now. On the other hand, the general topic is likely to be perennial, and what is in the articles' edit histories is secure. I have hit a tough patch of RL workload myself, covering roughly the same time frame as yours. :-) --JN466 17:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Journey to Mecca (2009 film)

Hi J, like your personlized welcome :) An IP has flagged Journey to Mecca (2009 film) for general cleanup and for reading like a review. I know you're a busy bunnie in the RW, but any pointers would be appreciated. A project editor had already checked it through and marked it as start class. Cheers, eric Esowteric+Talk 21:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I think it would probably help to lose words like "epic", "gruelling" etc. See WP:PEACOCK and WP:WTA; it just needs to read a little more soberly and "encyclopedic" vs. magazine-style. --JN466 23:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The section structuring could do with a bit of tidying (endorsement and genre e.g. probably could go in reception). For reference, here are a GA and a FA on two other documentaries; have a look at them and see if you get any obvious ideas for how to improve your article:
Another film article that was an FA for a long time is Triumph_of_the_Will; it was delisted recently because of sourcing issues. Even so, it is probably still one of our better articles on film documentaries.
Personally, I wouldn't have tagged the article; sure it can be improved, but you've made a good start. --JN466 02:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, J: much appreciated. Esowteric+Talk 10:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hope you have time to weigh in on this. You know the article very well by now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

the Hennes should be good now. I hope. But I replaced a lot of them with other cites. R Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just looking at it ... --JN466 22:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

no it's still open, as near as I can tell....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's gone from the FAC page and was one of those removed with the edit summary "promote", rather than one of those removed with the edit summary "archive", so you should be fine. But I'll support just in case ... --JN466 22:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

File:120px-barnstar-find.png The Reviewer's Barnstar
For your incredible ability to find the minutest ‘’minutae’’, and for suggestions on Cologne War, Unification of Germany, Hermann Detzner, and others. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks Ruth, that's very kind of you. Article creation is much the harder work, really. --JN466 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking about nominating the file [Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg] for Featured picture. Would you like to translate the text below the picture in this version? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a great picture. I'll add a translation of the caption to the file description (may not be tonight, but soon). --JN466 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, just noticed Librabot in my web server log. Coming from Microsoft Academic Search beta at http://academic.research.microsoft.com/ Regards, eric Esowteric+Talk 14:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to be mostly a database of IT-related papers right now, as far as I can tell, but might be worth watching. Cheers, --JN466 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, maybe that's all it is, Jayen. I had hoped (in my haste) that it was going to be something more generic. Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Enneagram of personality

Hi J, Michael Hampson left this message on my talk page and asked if I could maybe contact you, too. Sorry, at the moment am working in areas other than Wikipedia, and I gather you, too, have lots of RL work on. Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

" Hi Esowteric. You seem to be a key person in the discussions at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality about all the flags put up by Irbisgreif (now retired) at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality. I do not have the expertise to do the technical side of editing/updating the page, but I do have the subject expertise, and sufficient objectivity to create an article without bias. I am a (minor) published enneagram author, with a scientific background, and I did lots of research before weighing in. I would be happy to write an objective article, incorporating the material already up on the site, and happy for you (and anyone else) to review it for bias and objectivity before putting it up. My own material is online at www.enneagram.co.uk if you want to have a look, but I would create an entirely new objective review of the literature for Wikipedia. I would be really grateful if you were to offer to do the technical work of formatting and uploading it for me. In the meantime, my inexpertise at using this site extends to really having no idea how to use this page (*please* reply to contact@enneagram.co.uk or I'll never see your reply), and to having no idea how to contact the other main current talker at the talk page, namely JN/Jayen466. If you think we need another head on the task, perhaps you could contact him? Looking forward to hearing from you. Michael Hampson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.3 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

" Hi Michael, will pass this message on to Jayen466 and email you. Sorry, I really don't have the time, nor the expertise to contribute, but feel free to work on the article. Esowteric+Talk 18:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC) "

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Featured picture nominee Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/November&oldid=1077464452"