Revision as of 23:24, 12 May 2012 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,384,851 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2012/May. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:38, 14 May 2012 edit undoPrioryman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers27,963 edits →Topic ban violation notification: - clarifyNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit ]. The article, ], has changed significantly since it originally passed ] several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. ] (]) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) | Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit ]. The article, ], has changed significantly since it originally passed ] several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. ] (]) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Topic ban violation notification == | |||
Please note that under the ARBSCI sanctions you are not supposed to be commenting on my appeal (see remedy 3A). I've raised this at ]. I suggest that you remove your comments from the amendment case, as they are quite blatantly in violation of your sanctions. I'm not looking for you to be sanctioned for this violation, as you've probably forgotten about remedy 3A, but it's very inappropriate for you as a topic-banned editor to be commenting on another sanctioned editor's appeal. ] (]) 01:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:38, 14 May 2012
Barnstars |
'Click to see' image-toggling for taboo imagesCan you do me a favour? Please see the image toggling idea in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#A_few_bullet_points_from_the_discussion_area, and give me your word on my suggestion? Anthonyhcole suggested contacting you on my talk. I'd like to make it a bit clearer for you here, but I've over-spent my time of WP tonight and will be busy over the next couple of days. I've been meaning to ask you this but got a bit distracted, and at some point possibly-soon the closing admin on the Muhammad debate will post their report. If it's a goer I'll stay focused and spend as much time on it as it needs. I've become aware that there's a religion MOS too. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
COI editsthis and that are interesting. 64.40.54.234 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 May 2012
You have been mentionedYou have been mentioned on the TM research talk page per a change made to the content of the article should you wish to comment. By implication you have also been described as a member of the "Fairfield Cabal" here .(olive (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC))
FYIHello Jayen, I'm writing re: some edits made by you to the TM Research article which were reverted yesterday by Fladrif. I think that your version was more accurate than Fladrif's, and I have posted a response to his edit on the talk page of that article. Best wishes EMP (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Your perspective would be of valueHi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Topic ban violation notificationPlease note that under the ARBSCI sanctions you are not supposed to be commenting on my appeal (see remedy 3A). I've raised this at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for clarification: Jayen466 involvement in my ARBSCI appeal. I suggest that you remove your comments from the amendment case, as they are quite blatantly in violation of your sanctions. I'm not looking for you to be sanctioned for this violation, as you've probably forgotten about remedy 3A, but it's very inappropriate for you as a topic-banned editor to be commenting on another sanctioned editor's appeal. Prioryman (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |