User talk:John Carter/Archive October 2010
Have you taken a look at Portal:Scientology/Wikimedia?[edit]
The logo's for each image are extremely expanded. I saw that you were the first one to edit it; but it's been messed up since that time. I think you should take a look at it. Lighthead þ 0:21, March 25 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not even part of that project but I was just browsing... Lighthead þ 0:32, March 25 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-04)[edit]
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
thank spam[edit]
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
Time Times (2008-05)[edit]
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Time Times (2008-06)[edit]
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue four • June 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
Article about Khomeini[edit]
This article has been written by an agent of mullahs! There is not even one sentence on mass execution of political prisoners by Khomeini! There is nothing on violation of women's rights e.g. compulsory hijab. Female judges were forced to give up their jobs such as Shirin Ebadi...in islamic court, mullahs consider 2 women equal to one man! women can't even have an operation without the permission of their father/husband!
mullah even banned western music!
mullahs hang homosexuals & stone those who commit adultery!
those who convert from islam to any other religion will be executed!
Khomeini was behind the Cinema Rex fire, which led to the death (burning alive!) of approx. 500 people! most of your references are biased, they are taken from the islamic regime's sources e.g. poetry!! Khomeini couldn't even speak properly, let alone writing a poem!
I rename this article and I will add references. I have some questionst about it: 1. does references on Serbian language are good as references on English. I ask it because there is much more literature on Serbian church on Serbian than on any other language. 2. how many references are best for lists (one reference for every line or something different)?
AfD nomination of Garrison Courtney[edit]
Garrison Courtney, an article that you contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. The nominator does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns.
Comment on WikiProject organization[edit]
Rather than post on the WikiProject I thought I would bring my comment directly to you. I have found that the better functioning projects have strong editors/administrators who actively work at organizing and maintaining the project. Military is a great example to use because they have coordinators assigned not just to the Project, but to each of its Task Forces/Work Groups. I think you may find yourself frustrated trying to set up a similar structure in the Christianity project with so many different opinions and personalities. I wish you all the best because it is long over due; I just hope you don't get frustrated in the effort. -- Absolon S. Kent (chat), 11:01, Sunday, May 5, 2024 (UTC)
lowercase people[edit]
Alright, I wont mess with it anymore. I just got a little upset that people categorized lowercase people as a "Christian" organization, which it primarily isn't.
Editing Barnstar[edit]
|
100,000 Edits | |
| I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states[edit]
Mentioned you at this ANI thread I opened on myself. Feel free to stay out of it, if you want to, but wanted you to know I had brought up your name. Hiberniantears (talk)
Charles G. Koch[edit]
Thanks for weighing in. If you peruse Bonewah's talk page, you will note regular accusations of opinion oriented editing. My sense is Bonewah doesn't like character assassination but such is difficult when the subject has no character. Quoting Palast is quoting one of the more reliable sources available but there is also reference to the story when it was carried by CBS News which I included. Bonewah specifically doesn't like the word "giggle", s/he said so. S/he also thinks Truthout is a "fringe" news outlet. Certainly it doesn't have the charm of Fox News but, not influenced by corporate interests, it is one of the few major news outlets we have left. I have asked Greg Palast to provide me with an ironclad reference to the "giggle" comment. I also asked him for permission to use the quote. Whether he will answer or not, I do not know. I believe that this information is important as a more complete portrait of a person who has put his name on a number of things with some pocket change and, as someone said on the talk page "How can we talk this way about a great American businessman." Sigh. Having money still means morally correct to a large number of Americans. As I pile proof on this, Bonewah will come up with even further out comments, I believe. I understand that you are very busy and have much on your plate but, even so, I ask you to actually investigate what Bonewah's objections really are and the comments s/he has received from others with the same complaint that I have. Thank you. I have included my Koch material below.
Hi John: you probably have this in hand, but can we do anything to drum up some more interest in the coordinator election. AFAIK we currently have 2 candidates (one for lead, one for assistant) and a total of 2 votes cast. NBeale (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let me get the newsletter out, and with any luck maybe we can get something done. I'm not really optimistic about additional candidates myself, but we can hope and pray for the best. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Even if they don't want to be candidates it would be nice if people voted. It would give a warm feeling that people were supportive.NBeale (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can I help in any way? NBeale (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Advice[edit]
Hi John, I'm a new editor here. I have been having some issues in my attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. I have been working with others to improve the Same-sex marriage article. Several editors there have accused me of biased POV edits (while Wikipedian User:David_Shankbone has said that I am "doing an admirable job of tempering [my hypothetical] bias"), which I would guess is not unheard of on controversial articles. I was recently blocked for breaking 3RR for reverting controversial edits that did not achive consensus before they were added (which I realise was a warranted admin action and next time I will be more carefull). More than one editor has made personal attacks on me, and I believe one is currently (borderline) Wikihounding me. Also, editors have attempted to block the inclusion of sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals because they disagree with the POV in the articles (I have seen blogs and Fox news used as sources here. In grad school peer-reviewed journals were great. Not here?). I'm not too familiar with the rules here yet. Any advice would be great. Thanks in advance.Ragazz (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
What are the policies regarding wp:agf on user talk pages? Also, are users allowed to collude to prevent another editor from contributing? Is there a line as far as which wild accusations can be made here?Ragazz (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I am having trouble with constantly being signed-out accidentally, and my IP address showing after my edits and posts. Even when I still try to be careful, this sometimes happens. Is there anything I can do to avoid this? Also, is there some way to consolidate/transfer all prior posts/edits from my IP to my user profile? All of those posts/edits done after I created my account were intended to be done while I was signed in, but I keep getting bumped-off for some reason.Ragazz (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There may be a sock puppet IP editor (24.6.46.170) at the pagesHistory of same-sex unions and Same-sex marriage. They are adding infammatory tags to their edits such as "Removed false statements by an apparently biased Christian."Ragazz (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
user:historyguy1965 has been consistently ignoring the consensus process. This has caused several edit wars apparently, at least one that I'm aware of. Here is a recent example where I attempted to point this out to him, with links to the example. Here are some comments he made that violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. My problem is of course not with his edits per se, but the manor in which he is making them with total disregard to the consensus process. Please check out the situation. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any advice as to how I could be handling things differently?Ragazz (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
user:historyguy1965 has accused me of harassment. Does this count as a personal attack?Ragazz (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ownby's book[edit]
Could I ask you to please check the exact wording (p215) of his reading of 'Beyond the limits of Forbearance' which is cited in the 'self-immolation' article? I just want to make sure it is correct. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- John, An editor has commented on the review page that it's not clear who said what ("call to arms" quote). As I haven't read the book, could you please help to make the Ownby quote more precise in the article? Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear John Carter,
In the Saint Augustine article page, under the heading "Conversion", his conversion is defined as to "Catholic Christanity".
This is incorrect, as so many have referred to in its talk page.
I'v asked for comments. Request for Comments, on his talk page.
His conversion was from a bad life; desolate living, to a good life. His Confessions contain the famous phrase:
"Late have I lived you, O Beauty so ancient and so new; late have I loved you! For behold you were within me, and I outside; and I saught you outside and in my ugliness fell upon those lovely things that you have made....."
Confessions Bk 27.
May this be changed soon as, as it is, it is misleading.
Saint Augustine's page is a major entry.
MacOfJesus (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear John Carter,
I'v left a suggestion at the talk page of Saint Augustine. (In my work situation I meet people who quite proudly claim Saint Augustine as their ancient ancestor! From his desolate life!)
MacOfJesus (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear John Carter,
I'v left some pointers and suggestions on the talk page of Saint Austin. His conversion came in destinct stages. And unfortunately our predecessors deleated the "ugliness" phrase, for fear of insulting someone. So:
1. His conversion from a desolate life.
2. His acceptance of being "without the sweets of those toys!"
3. His finding the peace of an interior blessed life.
4. His becoming a priest and bishop.
I think there is great value in adding extra to the "Conversion" paragraph on the article page.
MacOfJesus (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Uganda[edit]
Guten Abend Herr Carter. I was wondering if you do kind of what you used to do with Uganda and assess and project tag articles. I've noticed a high number of Ugandan articles like Kitgum are not tagged or assessed and when there are editors like User:Fsmatovu writing them it is difficult to keep. I don't know if your health will permit you to do so but your help in assessing Ugandan articles would be greatly apprecated. Hope you are well Himalayan 21:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great, glad to hear you are better. I have been worried about you for a long time, same as SHahid has. Sarvagnya? LOL I'd forgotten he existed, low life nasty piece of work wasn't he! Yes the thing is though our coverage of Kuwait at present is a tiny percentage of what could or should be! I expanded an article on Al Jahra the other day, most of the other towns are one liners unfortunately. I've been managing to sort out svg maps though for places like this and Saudi.If you could put it on your todo list this would be awesome, it would probably surprise you more how many ugandan articles we now have! Himalayan 22:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks interesting... Himalayan 17:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Additions to List of new religious movements[edit]
At List of new religious movements, can we please keep the additions to the same formatting - and also not add additions simply to the book's title, but also include page numbers for each entry please? Cirt (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds great! :) I explained a bit more at the talk page of why this is important, especially on a controversial topic like this one, to have individual cites, and page numbers. The current format allows for this. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Can you please restore the page of the rejected mediation cabal Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states so it would possible to present it as evidence in the ongoing ArbCom case about the EE mailing list [1]. Thank you.--Dojarca (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Moving discussion to your talk page, or mine if you wish[edit]
"
- Ouch, sorry for misreading earlier. I guess the answer to that would be how much weight to give the various Chinese officials who have described it as a "cult". My guess is that, in the west, including academics, it is perceived primarily as a fringey new religion, but not necessarily as a cult. The question then becomes how much weight to give the allegations out of China regarding its effect there. One of the points in defining a cult is unquestioning regard for the words and actions of its leader, and certainly Falun Gong members seem to follow Li almost to the letter, according to what I read in Ownby, anyway. I think the defining characteristic of the term when it is used in a perjorative sense is whether being an adherent of the school is damaging to the individual. There are numerous allegations in China of such damage, generally put out by the government there. The devotion its adherents give it could be seen as being indicative of that as well. So, I guess, from what little I've seen, the people in the west apparently think it possesses some of the characteristics we associate with "cults", but not demonstrably to the degree that would justify use of that word. Most other religions fall in the same general grouping as well. I think the west also tends to discount the statements out of China in general, which I think throws out most of that data. So, probably, a group with uniformly highly devoted members, yes, a cult, no. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- John I think you are not fair regarding "One of the points in defining a cult is unquestioning regard for the words and actions of its leader, and certainly Falun Gong members seem to follow Li almost to the letter, according to what I read in Ownby ... The devotion its adherents give it could be seen as being indicative of that as well." simply because if we were to generalize this broadly, we could just as well start to argue that we are cult members just because we spend over 2h almost daily on Wikipedia, and speculate that the editors must have an irregular family life, back problems, eye problems, etc...
- Why would anyone in his right mind want to start speculation like that? For one we are not forced to edit Wikipedia, the same is true for the people who practice, we find it meaningful to edit here, so do they.
- The Chinese governments label as a cult is not based on any science, cases of practitioners who died of illness is not correlated with the general illness factor in the country. This is something very normal when the label is used just as a propaganda tool. Based on that I would accord near zero academic value to what the PRC says. Of course, I might have a POV, but if you have better reasoning on why the PRC's label should be given more academic value, please state it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the cult page, where extreme devotion to the words or actions of a leader is in fact listed as being one of the characteristics of cults, in the "According to secular opposition" section. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please read it again. To be a cult is way more complex then that. To quote completely your source: "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." The point is that to be a cult it has to be coercive. Do you agree? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also thank you for answering the question, now I guess this discussion is for the sake of broadening our understanding. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You did see where I said at the end that it seems that it probably doesn't meet the definition of "cult", but that it possesses several of the characteristics of them, right? Most religions do possess several of those characteristics, but aren't cults. Personally, I think given the comparative newness of this group, and its circumstances, it is probably not unreasonable for an uninformed person to raise the question of whether it is or is not a cult, but that the evidence available doesn't support particularly well the contention that it is a cult. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the cult page, where extreme devotion to the words or actions of a leader is in fact listed as being one of the characteristics of cults, in the "According to secular opposition" section. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
" copy out from here [2].
Hi John, I think it is best to move the discussion, so we don't clutter that page. Basically what I don't understand is why do you insist on pointing to this cult like characteristics since that is such a broad generalization that even a chess club might satisfy it. As I see it the main characteristic, without which there is no point in comparing anything to a cult, is if it is or not coercive. Do you agree? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
LTNS![edit]
Hey John, I gots a question. Do you know a quick way to find out if an article has been deleted? If so, let me know please. Joshua Ingram 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Mainstream Media. Could you look for me please? Joshua Ingram 22:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, man. Any reason you know of why there is someone reverting it after I've finished it? Look here when you get a chance. Thanks, bro. Joshua Ingram 00:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nevermind, bro. It was my fault. Still, thanks for the help.Joshua Ingram 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
HELP[edit]
John, I'm in need of your admin services--I was searching for an article about the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, without success, so I decided to create one. I found a fair amount of information and swatted one together, when(to my horror) I realised that I had misspelled the word Catholic in the title(Cathoic-I had input the wrong spelling in the search). I tried a move, but then discovered that there was a page titled Roman Catholic Diocese of Ciudad Juárez, all of about 4 lines worth. The one that I did( Roman Cathoic Diocese of Ciudad Juárez ) is infinitely better than the pre-existing article-Can you help? Muchas Graz,--Lyricmac (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- That would be best, since you had moved the narrative over to Roman Catholic Diocese of Ciudad Juárez. The mis-spelled article is rather superfluous now, I guess. Thanks a bunch.--Lyricmac (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Just ..[edit]
Thank you! ;) — Ched : ? 23:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. What he said. Lara 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't normally do this, but...[edit]
Hello John Carter, Unitanode has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Kazakhstan[edit]
I don't want to open up an old can of worms, but I'm not sure why you're suddenly toying with the WikiProject Central Asia template and adding material for a Kazakhstan WikiProject. Note that the WikiProject Kazakhstan you created has only three members (one of which is you), that no one has joined for over a year and a half, and that it is currently listed as inactive. Also, there was never a concensus reached that having a seperate WikiProject for Kazakhstan would be useful (as opposed to one for Central Asia in general, since so many articles/themes overlap with other countries in the region). If you feel the situation has changed, please start a new discussion at the talk page of WikiProject Central Asia, since, per the last discussion about this, such edits are you are doing now we deemed not necessarily helpful. Otebig (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC) +
WikiProject Zoroastrianism Notice![edit]
|
You are receiving this notice because you are on the Participants list for WikiProject Zoroastrianism, or you are a strong contributor to Zoroastrianism related articles. If you wish not to receive anymore updates concerning this WikiProject, then please leave a message here. This message is related to the opening of the new IRC channel #wikipedia-en-zoro. We have registered this channel for help and information concerning Zoroastrianism and for help related to edits, content, sources etc. If you wish to enter this channel, there are 2 ways: For those with a IRC client, they can simply click the following link: #wikipedia-en-zoro connect For those who want to access IRC on their browser, they can go to the channel by clicking here. Recently, most of the participants were put to Inactive Participants to only maintain the active participants. If you are still active, please move your name back up to the Active Participants section right here. |
Behavior Reply[edit]
First off, whether or not you believe this I do appreciate you taking the time to give me that advice on my page. I just have one problem, how do you deal with people who have such an obviously biased POV? The editor I'm usually at war with does things I have no idea how to handle. For example, when someone inserts a 'clarify' tag next to something like 'same-sex marriage' how else can you reply? What's worse is when they do this, say, 6 days earlier it may go unnoticed by other editors, however when I take notice and revert it to it's original wording all the sudden he'll revert it and say "take it to talk" - well excuse me, you MADE that change without going to talk first and now all the sudden I have to achieve a consensus on the previous consensus? I love wikipedia in so many ways, but I just hate the way that controversial articles are sometimes based on an editors POV rather than the facts at hand -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to interupt here, but I can't resist.
- 1) I did consult the talk page. It's all there, although some of it's archived now. There is currently a careful discussion as to what the article should call "same-sex marriage" in ancient history. Were you unaware of this, or did you just feel that discussing the issue with others was a waste of your time becasue you're right?
- 2) A new anon IP editor came in and made all kinds of changes a few days ago without consulting talk. Because of how it was done with multiple edits, rebuilding the section was a headache. David and I had a dialogue going, that you didn't bother to check, evidently. There was a clear conflict between editors, so I inserted some temporary neutral wording, so as to not have to delete the entire passage. Your implication that I snuck in and made changes without consulting talk is 100% off base.
- 3) As for the citation tags, why do you constantly remove them without consulting talk? They should stay until there is a consensus to remove them. Once you removed a clarification tag, and replaced it with a reference to Webster's dictionary. Seriously? Was that sarcastic? You remove citation tags and give the reason "what are these doing here?" Why not take it to talk first? These actions are highly counterproductive.
- 4) The entire conflict is based on this change that you made without consulting the talk page. I have seen several editors call you on this behavior. Don't explain an edit in the tag on the history page (and obviously when it involves content, as it did here). Explain it on the talk page, before you make it. Especially on a highly controversial topic.
- 5) So you say I'm inserting biased POV everywhere. Then why is it that the serious editors on there (David, Nat, Yobmod, Tommy, etc.) have no problems working with me? Because I have learned to take it to the talk page and work towards a consensus.Ragazz (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks John, appreciate the reply. Apologies that he's brought the argument into your talk, he sort of has a tendency to follow me and simply disagree. I will not continue it here -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
RfC[edit]
[3] - it is now ready if you want to certify so it can be official. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't certify this nonsense, John. It's little more than drama-mongering. UnitAnode 05:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava's to be certified? Long overdue. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A bit confused, honestly. Users who certify a dispute are expected to have attempted to resolve the dispute ("at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem.") Could you define exactly what the "dispute" in question is, and what exactly you have done to resolve the problem, paying specific notice to the fact that the evidence section you have certified mentions the user in question but once, and only to show that they interacted with a sockpuppet. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have contested your certification of the Bishonen RFC. As you may be aware, certifiers of an RFC are required to provide evidence that they tried and failed to resolve the dispute prior to the filing of the RFC. No diffs of your attempts to resolve the dispute were provided. If you cannot provide evidence of your attempts to resolve the dispute, I will strike your certification. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note that unless you or someone else can provide a diff of you (or them) attempting to resolve a dispute with Bishonen, the RFC will be deleted in 36 hours. Hipocrite (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Bad block[edit]
John, assuming good faith, it’s entirely possible that your recent display of incompetence and admin tool abuse was simply an oversight. Issuing a block so you could have the last word is a pretty shameful example of bullying. I hope you sure more maturity in the future.
Even though you refused to correct your action, egos are such fragile things, I’m willing to forgive and forget. To err is human.
Please keep an eye on Sarek and make sure he leaves Otter alone. Stalking and hounding from an admin involved in content disputes with a good faith editor when the same admin is engaging in enforcement actions towards the editor is totally unacceptable. That Sarek continued to flaunt common sense and decency immediately after the ANI report by pursuing Otter to a new venue is particularly outrageous.
If you’d like to help (instead of hurt) efforts to rein in the harassing trolling that goes on here, I encourage you to keep an eye on Tarc, Mathsci, and WMC. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Xenu[edit]
Hi John, I would be grateful if you might be able to mediate between Cirt and myself at Talk:Xenu#Revert_regarding_what.2C_according_to_Hubbard.2C_is_designed_to_cause_pneumonia. For whatever reason, Cirt and I seem to be talking past each other a little. Cheers, --JN466 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
RfC shenanagins[edit]
The referral is to this which in turn refers to this and this. Fainites barleyscribs 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- [4] Once you post there and ask, and you can ask why she defended Geogre when he was edit warring and the rest knowing that he had a sock puppet in the dispute, then there is beyond a doubt no more technical problems that they are using to justify their games. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion about the RfC[edit]
If you examine the requirements of certifying an RfC, you'll notice that you have to have been directly involved in trying to resolve the dispute. As you were not so-involved, you should probably remove your invalid certification. UnitAnode 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which is 100% false, as John was involved in trying to settle the edit warring, which Bishonen contributed to. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about the "no email" thing, John. I can understand why you'd want to discuss it privately (see directly above me here), but I prefer to keep Wikipedia discussions on-Wiki. UnitAnode 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you so rude?[edit]
Why do you keep on reverting me? Realist01 (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Microstates wikiproject[edit]
Please think twice before adding the microstates wikiproject template to popes that predate Pius XI. Vatican City was only created in 1929. It's a bitch of a stretch to apply it to medieval popes, as you did here. Savidan 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- So are there any articles currently tagged with WikiProject Catholicism that you wouldn't tag with the microstates project? I'm fine with you tagging buildings and artworks within Vatican City, but tagging every pope, including some who probably reigned from the Lateran, not the Vatican, seems excessive. Savidan 14:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you made a comment a while suggesting that we have this article, which I've just started. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Xenu II[edit]
Hi, if you could look in again at the talk page of our favorite galactic overlord; I reworded the proposal following your comment. I think what we have at the moment is still a bit clunky, but I am open to suggestions. --JN466 12:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Edittools[edit]
What fixed your problem? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Baasically, I copied the edittools page linked to into my own, blank, edittools page. And that seemed to have worked. I'm guessing the fact that the page was blank up until then might have had something to do with it, but I honestly don't know enough about this to be sure. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:John Carter/edittools.js was not blank, it did not exist unit you created it. Even then, it is not called by User:John Carter/monobook.js, so it isn't doing anything. Did you try anything else? I'm thinking that we need a Help page on edittools, and I am in an information gathering phase. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You may have a point. What I did was copy the name tha the monobook page was copied from, and, then pasted it onto the equivalent name for my page and purged the cache. The only other thing I did was create a similar page at MediaWiki, because that's where the copied page was. That's it basically. I suppose it's possible purging the cache had something to do with it, but I can't imagine how, as I'd done that before regarding other matters after trying to change the edittools, and got no results. I wish I knoew more, and having an instruction page would probably help, but that's all I know. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Please[edit]
As I posted to Malleus to ignore your comments, please just ignore him. There is no way for it to go but down, and the comments were not worth enough on either side to merit the strife. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Commenting on Giano[edit]
Your comments about Giano on Mattisse's talkpage go beyond unhelpful. It feeds her perceptions of persecution and doesn't assist her in moving past her problems in any way. She needs blunt honesty -- not attacks, just honesty -- not coddling. UnitAnode 16:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing as how your earliest contribution is 21 March 2009 and you weren't around for the disputes or the history, you really have no understanding of what Mattisse needs. Unless, of course, you want to claim that you had a previous account. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your input here was completely unnecessary. I was addressing John, not you. UnitAnode 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment was about Mattisse, and it has been clear that you have crossed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your input here was completely unnecessary. I was addressing John, not you. UnitAnode 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Note[edit]
Hi. Sorry to edit through the protection you've placed, but please see this thread involving you. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per PPol, please don't protect user talk pages, unless absolutely necessary. Since talk pages are the primary means of communication, fully protecting your talk page leaves the vast majority of editors unable to contact you in the usual way, and semi protection leaves all new users - the ones who are most likely to need help - unable to contact you. Since only one editor was the reason for protection, blocking is a better course of action. If blocking isn't appropriate, neither would protection be. Prodego talk 03:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- You did see the note at the top of the page, right? It's been there since the "Yo to the Nympho!!!" repeated vandalism at the end of the last school year. John Carter (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks though for your handling of the situation after the fact. Many lesser administrators would have postured that they were within their rights to keep the page protected, effecting much unnecessary dramaz in the process. Instead, your conduct was becoming of an admin. Cheers, HiDrNick! 03:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey[edit]
Was peeking at ANI and figured you could use a pleasant diversion. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tinucherian is ready for you when you get a chance. FWIW and not saying it's right, I've protected my talk page for far less (but then again, I'm also impulsive, shallow and not the brightest chicken in the sea). Kind regards -- Samir 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool down?[edit]
Hi John. I've watched the last few hours of comments between you and Unitanode on various talk pages. I really think that you misunderstood Unitanode's comments/motivations/etc and have overreacted, and you've both gotten upset enough to escalate this far beyond what it ought to have been. At the very least, I did not interpret his/her comments in the same way that you did, and I encourage you to assume good faith and let it go. The current situation is not reflecting well on either of you. Karanacs (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Like Unitanode, I also interpreted Mattisse's comments on the monitoring page as her encouraging others to move the thread to the talk page. I would have made the same edit he/she did if Unitanode hadn't gotten there first. Karanacs (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- That edit actually wasn't the problem. It was his explicit and implicit unquestioned assumptions regarding the actions of others, including me and you, his demand that I withdraw criticism of him because he wouldn't accept that, etc. And, no, there had been several questions in my mind regarding why this individual whose own ignorance of the situation didn't in any way affect his certainty that he was right, and his insistence that others observe rules he didn't have to, caused me to have substantial questions regarding his conduct and his motivations for some time. John Carter (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop repeating your bad-faith assumptions about me, John. I've asserted over and over that I don't have any mysterious, hidden motivations regarding Mattisse. You keep implying that I do. How is this acceptable from anyone, more or less an administrator? I'm asking you once again to quit making such implications. UnitAnode 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Part of letting a situation cool down is letting someone talk about it freely, Unitanode. Just because John is describing his feelings on the situation doesn't mean he's making accusations. He's not recommending any action against you. Please allow him to discuss this unencumbered. Equazcion (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop repeating your bad-faith assumptions about me, John. I've asserted over and over that I don't have any mysterious, hidden motivations regarding Mattisse. You keep implying that I do. How is this acceptable from anyone, more or less an administrator? I'm asking you once again to quit making such implications. UnitAnode 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
my RFA[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Tinu Cherian - 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan[edit]
Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Hi John. When my wiki-spirit is flagging, I regularly return to posts others have made to try to revive my spirits. This [6] is a wonderful motivational speech, and it has made my mental list of posts to re-read when I'm down. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 06:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I apologize. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
hi![edit]
Yeah I remember you too. Lots of changes since that project! I moved from Toluca to Mexico City. I now work at the language laboratory coordinator so I dont teach classes. Have to say I miss that but I am busy redesigning the facility. I continue to write in Wikipedia partly to keep reading in Spanish and partly to get me off my butt and see things here in Mexico. Sort of use it as my travel log. I research and write about places I have been or plan to go, with occasional forays into other topics that catch my fancy. Been thinking about doing an article relating to Mexican folklore and/or mythology. I remember the folklore article one of my students wrote kind of sucks (ok really sucks). But I was still pretty new at Wikipedia myself. Hard part sometimes is sources. Weird but true. Libraries here are not as good as the States. Digital sources arent quite yet here either, and Im in the capital.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Found the lousy article Folktales of MexicoThelmadatter (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Olive branch[edit]
I regret that things have degenerated as they have. As I've worked out a system with SilkTork, the circumstance that caused the degeneration has, I think, been dealt with, and I hope that we can move forward productively from here. UA wishes you peace!
UA 20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
'Persecution' AfD[edit]
John, it seems you typed one tilde too many. The signature's missing. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the keyboard on my laptop has been getting weird lately. Fixing. John Carter (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A start on the ArbCom report[edit]
Here. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
hogenakkal falls redirect .[edit]
hi ! saw u after a long time in hogenakkal falls topic on this redirect ... so nice to have you back ..... many thanks for your support ...good luck....kind regards .--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 10:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy John Carter's Day![edit]
 |
User:John Carter has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse: report and layout[edit]
Hi, John. At User talk:SilkTork/Report: SilkTork's drafting a report for ArbCom: and we've discussed the layout for an incident report and seem close to consensus. Would you like to check in and add your comments. ArbCom wants the report of recent events and the procedure & layout for future by Friday, so we really need to finalise and go public on Thurs. --Philcha (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Grundle discussion on ANI[edit]
Sorry to bug you. Could you explicitly clarify if your support for the ban includes, or excludes, talk pages? Just want to cover that base in case of any appeals. :) Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Governors of American Samoa[edit]
As you're former account was a member of the American Samoa Work Group, I was wondering if you had any interest in helping to create articles on the governors of American Samoa. We are lacking quite a few, and the project would go faster with more contributors. Do consider helping out with the governors listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Governors. Thank you and Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Meher Baba Discussion Page[edit]
Dear John, like tremors that warn of an earthquake once again there are clear signs the discussion standards have slipped re the Glow article. please note the last comment by hoverfish. It is antagonostic and unhelpful. I will be reminding him that civility be used, but can you monitor please. --Jones.liam (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's[edit]
Hello John, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [7] Thanks! NancyHeise talk 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
District of Columbia[edit]
Since your post on 17 October, aside from my reply, there have been no further posts regarding the scope discussion. Would it be a good idea to make a Request for Comment to get the opinion of the wider community? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you already commented in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Small Pakistan wikiprojects, you might want to comment also here. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Portal peer review request[edit]
Hello John, feel free to visit a review Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Gastropods/archive1 and have a nice reading. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Did I forget to thank you? ..[edit]
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hullo John. One of your edits to this template is being questioned on the talkpage; could I get you to review it and leave a comment? Thanks, Skomorokh, barbarian 10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Rollback[edit]
Hello John. Please could you grant me rollback rights? I am asking you because I notice you are on the list of admins willing to give rollback rights. Also because I have had some dealings with you previously and hopefully you would view me as someone essentially trustworthy. I have done occasional vandal reverts every now and again (and many non vandal reverts that I appreciate would not necessarily be rollback issues) but I am getting interested in working toward a bit of admin sometime in the future and I think that combating more vandalism with a bit of responsibility would be good for this. Polargeo (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am looking forward to being able to use this however I'll have a good review of the criteria first. Polargeo (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Re:Wikibooks and suchlike[edit]
I have been working on improving Wikipedia Poland-related coverage for years. I will admit I am not that active on Wikibooks. Are you talking about Wikipedia or Wikibooks project? Is it related to WP:MEA? One of my related projects is filling in the User:Piotrus/List of Poles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. If you want to propose something on the Proposed Talk, you are more then welcome to do that. On the subjects of things that somebody may need to do if I am unable too, any suggestions who could help with this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The article American Evangelistic Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This seems to be advertising or promotion and notability of the organization has not been shown through third party sources. It has been tagged for sources and wikifying since March 2009.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Novaseminary (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Member?[edit]
Are you still willing to be an active member of my mentor/adviser panel? If so, would you be willing to offer your advise on User talk:SilkTork/Report? (I hope you are still willing!) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to comment on what "title" you prefer, eg "mentor", "adviser" or some other?[8] —mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings.[edit]
Hi.
Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.
If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.
Grundle2600 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Meher Baba Silence Draft[edit]
John thanks for your continued interest and advice. Please see my draft on the MB talk page, and the comments following. I'd appreciate any input. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
RFA lessons[edit]
What's really amazing is that "acknowledgedly" actually returns 35,000 google results. I thought for sure you made it up. Equazcion (talk) 17:43, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Have the time I do, actually. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse report[edit]
Would you please read over User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report and confirm (or otherwise) that you are content for this to be given as the requested report to ArbCom. SilkTork *YES! 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Equatorial Guinea[edit]
Hi, I just signed up to collaborate on Wikipedia:WikiProject Equatorial Guinea and just wanted to say hello. Bab-a-lot (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikicup, now that's an intresting and good idea to increase productivity, I like it. Good to see we now have an active Equatorial Guinea member. Hope you are well! Himalayan 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Request[edit]
As you probably know more about this than I do, could you take a look at WP:RSN [9] and Talk:Rousas John Rushdoony? Should it be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity? I agree that the article needs to be NPOV, but I don't see the recent edits as moving it in that direction and at the moment I've just refrained from replying at RNS because I'm more than a bit annoyed at some of the comments aimed at me and need to reflect more before replying. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki[edit]
Message added 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:resignation[edit]
An important part of being an admin is having community's trust. I always expected that it was inevitable such trust would disappear, given my activity and topics I edit. While there is no serious evidence I have misued the mop and bucket (see here and my reply at the bottom of the section here)), my resignation (and in reality, this entire case) is not about evidence (FoF still have only one diff - linked above - on me...), but trust. I was always open to recall, and I consider three arbitrators asking for resignation enough to resign. Perhaps in the future the community will reevaluate the situation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Admin help[edit]
I need some help with WP:HISTORYMERGE of User:Dagypt/Gender aspects of globalization in China and User:Angelalhan/Gender aspects of globalization in China to Gender aspects of globalization in China. It's one of my educational projects, and the students in this one have run into trouble with the idea of collaboratively working on one article, not to mention of the importance of the edit history both for the assessment and for GFDL... :) If you can do it, could you drop a note on article's talk page (which needs to be moved from User talk:Dagypt/Gender aspects of globalization in China) and student's talk pages about what you did and why? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Try it :) Or perhaps you can ask at WP:AN for help? Somebody has to do it soon, and I cannot do it :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Your request for Uganda barnstar[edit]
Hi, John Carter! What do you think of this? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Andrea105Bot[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"[edit]
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) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Referencing style[edit]
You see the style used at List of UFO religions? It is basically the same exact thing. :) Cirt (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse[edit]
Hi John, I have given Mattisse a warning not to post any form of comment on another Wikipedia editor without first getting advice to make such a comment. I have started a discussion on G guy's talk page. Your views are welcome and requested. SilkTork *YES! 09:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi[edit]
I did read your view at dab's RfC/U, and I don't want to discourage such offers. That said, I hope you will understand why users feel less inclined based on the collapsed part of my response. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you add this to your watchlist, especially since dab's on a break. I just did a mass revert, and explained on the talk page. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think Jaggi81 is a sockpuppet as tagged on his userpage. That user is from India, whereas this one edits from New Jersey (I think), but I could be wrong too, the only reason I came to the Telugu article was because of the RfC, so I don't know much about the "editors" on this one. -SpacemanSpiff 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Additions to List of new religious movements[edit]
Can you add the year, to keep it uniform with the other cites, instead of the title, to the in-line cites? Cirt (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
IP edits[edit]
I would like to AGF, but can you check to see if these edits by the IP are correct, at List of new religious movements? You have the source. ;) Cirt (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like vandalism. Gave the IP a final warning. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Pope Sixtus I[edit]
Not quite sure what was intended at Talk:Pope Sixtus I. Project Saint was deleted and Project microstate substituted. This seemed odd. Anyone but you, I would have reverted! :) Student7 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Lack of "C" class for Ethiopian articles[edit]
Yes, this is true. The reason for this is that (1) I'm the guy on whom the task of rating Ethiopia-related articles has fallen, by default; & (2) I'd rather spend my time improving articles than trying to figure out whether an article is correctly "Start", "C" or "B" class. (IMHO, I consider supporting the "C" class a drain on Wikipedia's increasingly limited resources.) If someone else wants to take over that chore, I'll withdraw my objection to that class. Best -- llywrch (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Concordat of 1925[edit]
I see that at Talk:Concordat of 1925 you added the WikiProject European Microstates banner. Is it used consistently on concordats? It seems a bit off topic to me, although I realize now there is no banner for Vatican. I do note that the European Microstates is not used on Talk:Vatican, nor on Talk:Holy See... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Template:Thatcherism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Reply[edit]
I understand what you are saying but I can not out of principle accept blame for something I did not do. This really is unacceptable behaviour. That is harrassment, personal attacks and sidetracking. If I was in the wrong, I would not mind admitting. But I wasnt. I don't agree with the other persons warning either as far as being incivil. I reserve the right to defend myself when accused of somebody else. And when Shahid asks for proof, then at least he should demonstrate proof before accusing me. Would you not agree? Whether he is reminded of somebody else or not, is irrelevant. That is not proof but his personal opinion bordering on paranoia. I did not even know the guy before this dispute. I don't know yet how to add links or direct you to other discussions but the accusations against me are to be found. My objections too. I found the strong bias disturbing (I remove the message after reading which I can. So does Shahid. So that proves nothing). I also do not take sides or plan on asserting my view. Good god, I watch these movies. It was one of those things that are relevant to the article. Harmless too. Other options of resolution could have been: 1) I have seen on wikipedia, that when people see a citation is missing, they add a tag and if nobody responds within reasonable time one can remove the content and tag. Rather than blatantly removing something and issuing warnings (hostile to say the least) 2) Discussed the issue on the articles discussion's page and reaching a consensus of some sort (preferred) rather than just systematically deleting. I am new and I read wikipedia guidelines in small chunks when time allows. Today my time has been wasted in this dispute and the user has been opening the same discussions in several places. I think you must agree, that is not really sensible certainly in light of experience. Anyways, I am here only to share and gain knowledge. I did contact an admin but perhaps I should have gone straight to the request assistance page. I didn't know of it though. Hopefully this matter will resolve although I have been put off editing on here. Starrylight (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand but unfortunately and sincerely, I do not feel you can quote justify this case like that or even Shahid's behaviour which was and is out of line, and he does in fact owe me an apology for accusing me falsely. And I have gone through the criticism and warning that he removed from his talk page (history), and they appeared sensible and polite. But still, I played no part in them. Nothing justifies personal attacks of this nature as that too could fall under defamation of character, hotheaded or not. Basically it is insinuated that the person (me) is lying and not being truthful. That is harrassment and bad faith. And the burden of proof also applies to him too but was loudly missing and will remain missing as the I am just not the person he thinks I am. He threatened me with everything from warnings, blocks, to AIN and user checks. At no point did I stop him because I have nothing to hide. I see your concerns with regards to other parties' interests versus actual facts but I can't say that even crossed my mind. My edit is neither controversial or vandalism. Just a piece of information. Information anybody can dig up by googling or just watching the movies. Although i have no problems referencing my work, I have come to the conclusion that I can not edit here unless I want to encounter such gross attacks by one user. Unacceptable terms to me. I just don't need the headache. Starrylight (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a place to combine these?[edit]
Running into a link for studybibleforum.com at Sons of God I've found links at Acts of Solomon, Prophecy of Ahijah, and Story of the Prophet Iddo -- all stubs. I'm wondering if (cleaned up) they should be merged into a larger article, presuming there is an appropriate one? Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible would probably be the best place that I can see right now. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that calling them 'books' might be a stretch, as is it definite they all existed as such? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- We're not actually sure a lot of those books actually existed as separate books, depending on how we define "Book" in this case, but I do see quite a bit of reference to the Acts of Solomon in scholarly literature. The prophecies of Ahijah were being written down, whether as seperate "books" or not I don't know, and it and Iddo seem to receive enough scholarly discussion to at least be mentioned in the scholarly works. Whether they actually existed, or are short "books" like Habbakuk, or just alternate names for other works, we don't really know, but they are attested to and discussed enough to probably qualify as notable. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that calling them 'books' might be a stretch, as is it definite they all existed as such? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you speedy delete Ofo language redirect?[edit]
Hi, could I possibly trouble you to speedy delete Ofo language (the redirect)? It seems to be occupying the space where Ofo Language should rightfully be, for consistency sake. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
acculturation[edit]
You mean "enculturation." With all due respect, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Roll call for WikiProject Warriors[edit]
Airplaneman talk 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Nephilim[edit]
Thanks dude, my family's computers (but not mine) were all infected with a bunch of crap so I've been out of it all day. You handled that IP editor a lot better than I would have. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Glad I could help. Hope the computers are functioning. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
John, I decided to come here because I feel bad that some of what I (inartfully) said in the RfC ended up sounding like it was directed at you, which it wasn't. A mob of the other people have been putting words in my mouth, and my temper was beginning to run short. I realize that I referred to UNDUE, and you had previously referred to it also, so it was logical that you thought I meant you. I didn't. I meant the people who are saying Idontlikeit because it doesn't fit their views of what is culturally important. And I really have agreed with you all along about increasing the amount of fine art coverage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Enjoying your user page[edit]
Hi. I was enjoying your user page and I thought that the articles that you mentioned there could be the beginnings of a book on Wikipedia memorabilia by a wikpediaphile. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for positive comments about Brews Ohare on my talk page[edit]
I just noted that Brews is back, and I told him about your comment on my talk page. Let's see how he feels about your suggestions. Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
John, just a quick note to say that I read your post on the above talk with interest and am probably speaking on behalf of most editors when I say that every point you made was bang on the mark, you summed up everything that every concerned editor has said on the multiple talks/noticeboards/investigations very well and it's just disappointing that the editor concerned is being awkward. A long time ago they appeared to have stopped taking any interest in productive discussion and I think your post is a well-articulated ending to a very sorry affair. raseaCtalk to me 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in Argentina articles[edit]
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in Argentina articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in Argentina articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in Argentina articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Attacks by Redheylin[edit]
John, after the ANI thread was closed by admin Jehochman with a warning to Redheylin (talk · contribs) against making unsupported attacks on other users, and after "final warnings" about said inappropriate behavior by admin Georgewilliamherbert to Redheylin - Redheylin continues to do so [10].
Redheylin (talk · contribs) has already received multiple final warnings from multiple admins. There was already a long ANI thread discussion which agreed that Redheylin has been inappropriate in making unsupported attacks. Further admin action is warranted here. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please see ANI. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI[edit]
[11]. And as you say it was a WP:NPA, perhaps further action is required? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- And per WP:NPA, can you alter that subheader created by ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs)? Cirt (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
CoM[edit]
Not sure if you want to read this or not, but I commented that he hadn't warned Georgewilliamherbert until after you told him you hadn't and he responded on my talk page. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
School and university projects[edit]
I saw your admin availability note in here, so here goes. Hopefully this is up your alley. As a new images patroller I have come across several new images uploaded for what I now know to be the part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art!. The issue is that some of these editors have been uploading images of modern US sculptures which are obviously derivative images of copyright works because there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US per Commons:COM:FOP. I have tried to discuss this with some, with some success in some instances, but others just revert my deletion notices. In one instance I have been able to reduced the image use down from 10 to one image with a good fair-use rationale. I had tagged some images for speedy deletion as copyright violations but between my tagging and an admin review the editor added a fair-use rationale to each of about 10 images, so the admin refused the speedy, so now I have to go back and do a PROD which they will fail because they don't comply with all 10 WP:NFCC criteria. IMHO, they should just have been deleted at once, but I am not an admin, so it is easy to criticise! I thought it would be a good idea to post some FOP details as to what is acceptable and what is not. Would you agree with that and can you assist with valid deletions? I now realise tidying up after such project, by newbie and uninformed editors, can be quite a task. TIA Please drop me a talkback when you reply as I am not watching the page. ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC) {I know comparatively little about images and copyright law, stupidly, but am willing to do what I know how to do. Can you give me some sort of indication of the images or users involved? John Carter (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks John, it's a pity you are not an image copyright expert. If I remember correctly all images by Kchattin were tagged for deletion by me under the FOP issue as used in The Herron Arch 1 and Weather Tower and the lead images have proper rationales and low resolution images, but everything else is improper use. NFCC only allows minimal use, i.e., one non-free image in an article. All images by Kchattin, except File:Weather Tower Proper Front Reduced.jpg and File:The Herron Arch 1 Proper Left.JPG should be deleted. Maybe you can review these for a start. Most of the other articles linked in Template:IUPUIPublicArt suffer from the same FOP issue, AFAICS each article is being edited by one user. I'll watch this page for now. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know any more about US copyright than the not very helpful Commons page - installed before 1923 is ok, and artist died before ???? (when?) also. Otherwise only FU. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Santa Claus, Arizona[edit]
Just curious, why is this article more in the scope of Christianity than anything else? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Your false accusations[edit]
Making false accusations is a clear cut civility violation and totally unacceptable. Please refactor. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, and please do not post on this page with your own gross misreprentations or other distortions again. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
'Note to Child of Midnight[edit]
Your last edit was after having already received a notice to stay off this page. And you are also apparently unable to read, which honestly doesn't surprise me particularly much, because I already made a comment regarding the parenthetical warning you gave on the ANI page, which, if you did bother to read it, indicated that I took that statement as referring to a prior request for desysoping. You might also note that there have been comments by others regarding the timing of these comments. In short, you have in effect made a repeated false allegation on a page you had already been asked to vacate yourself from, specifically, this one. I am forced to question whether you have any concept of even basic civility. Giving the existing sanctions against you, though, that probably shouldn't surprise me. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I... err... I don't mean to butt in and I have very little knowledge of past history between you two, but both of you seem to be increasing the issue. Can't we all just get along? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Response to editor who seemingly doesn't pay attention to explicit requests to stay off this page: I have as I said already stated on the page in question, well before your posting here, that you had in fact issued a very parenthetical notice to GWH which, given its obtuseness, I was unable to recognize as such. I also note that you started your own comments here well after I had said that. If you do not read the fairly clear comments of others, much clearer than your own, I cannot see why you consider your own frankly unacceptable behavior acceptable, nor do I think that any reasonable person would see your now repeated demands for further actions as reasonable. Your own repeated failure to pay attention to this matter, and making demands that which are not justified by the facts, has basically worn out my patience completely, and at least in my eyes said much mroe about you and your conduct than I ever could. I believe you have now received, with this, three explicit statements to stay off this page. Please abide by them. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
John, you added a citations needed template, but isn't this really just an essay, pure OR? Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- My guess is it probably isn't our OR. The Oxford Companioh to Christian Thought reference was there at the time, and my guess is that the article is some sort of recreation of the article in that book. John Carter (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly, yes. Or an essay using a lot of it. IF it is a recreation it might be copyvio as close paraphrase. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let's hope it isn't that close. But I can try to check over the weekend if I can find a copy of it. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly, yes. Or an essay using a lot of it. IF it is a recreation it might be copyvio as close paraphrase. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks re my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Emergency question[edit]
I need an administrator for advice so I picked you from the list of administrators. I picked a few others first but saw that they are not editing now (maybe eating or sleeping).
1. I was very surprised to see that Amanda Knox did not have an article. She was just convicted in a high profile murder trial.
2. I then created an article.
3. I then was going to start an article talk page when I see that the talk page was deleted before because the article was deleted and redirected.
4. Oops. To fix the matter, I was going to wipe out the article. But in the mean time of just a few minutes, several editors have made edits.
What should I do now?
1. Commit vandalism and wipe out other people's edits and make it a redirect? No!
2. File an AFD even though I am not clearly convinced that it should be deleted (not sure, I can see the reasons for delete but having a 2 year trial does carry some weight)? No, it is wrong to file an AFD unless you are sure it should be deleted.
3. Do nothing?
4. How about ask here?
Possible solutions:
1. Be a dictator and delete the article.
2. File an AFD and await probable deletion but have it done correctly.
3. Page protect the article then ask all the editors who edited if they are ok with it redirected, if so redirect then unpage protect the article.
4. Do nothing but leave a talk page note inviting people to file an AFD if they believe the article should be deleted or redirected.
Help! Is #4 the best choice? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance.
I am not strongly for or against an Amanda Knox article. However, I came to WP to see what her pre-Italy background was and found that I had to look elsewhere online, not in WP.
I am disturbed that the net result (whether intentional or not) was to stifle creation of the Knox article. I did not want to wipe out others' edits when I found out that the Amanda Knox talk page was twice deleted but others are not so careful. They just wiped out the article and page protected it, which is quite heavy handed. Also deleting the Amanda Knox talk page several months ago is not good because then there is no forum to discuss the proposed article (but then the delete people can say there is no consensus for creation). The fact that there are quite a few different editors editing in the few minutes that the article was around shows that there is much traffic and interest to Amanda Knox.
As for the article, I can see where people state that she has no details other than the murder trial. However, extensive coverage can sometimes make a one event person into a wikipedia biography. John Hinckley is actually cited as an example where a one event person can be allowed an article (it was in a Wikipedia guidelines or Wikipedia policy page).
While being not so interested in being for or against the Amanda Knox article, I am very much for less argument and better process in Wikipedia. I suggested a "how to" and policy manual a few weeks ago, but an adminstrator told me to fuck off. I later found out that a Wikipedia trustee (Frank Schulenburg?) was quoted in the newspaper as wanting to develop the same thing. See, I am a source of good ideas. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
You know, nobody ever gave me one of those things before (snif) I appreciate it coming from you. EEH the stories I could tell. And I might, when I stop getting att..... finish the present properly rigorous collaboration. Redheylin (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation![edit]
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
- Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
- Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
- Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
- Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
- Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
- Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
- Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
- Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
- Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
- In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, the flag you signed up with at the 2010 WikiCup Signups page was removed as it did not meet our flag requirements. Your flag must "be under a free license that is of a (current or historical) continent, country, state, county or city and has NOT already been chosen by another contestant. You may not use the flag of Mexico." Please return to the signups page and choose a new flag that meets these requirements. Thank you! iMatthew talk at 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Book-class[edit]
The religion template now supports the book-class. If you need help modifying the other banners, let me know. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
NRM essay/guideline idea[edit]
John, given this present status of the Guidelines section at WP:NRM, it's occurred to me that we might profitably do some work in this area. Further to Will's comments at ANI, I've jotted down a few ideas on his talk page. Do you think it is worth pursuing, and would you want to chip in? --JN466 14:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the Judaism MoS and think writing it as an MoS is a good idea. I've started a thread on the project talk page (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group#NRM_MoS) to see what the other project members think. --JN466 17:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia e-mail[edit]
You have e-mail. Horologium (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- So do you. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
User page updates[edit]
I was looking over your userpage, and I noticed a few things. One, after the section titled SPECIAL! BONZAI STORY GENERATOR VERSION!!!, it appears that all the text is just a random jumble of words. Two, you have the Yeoman Editor Service Badge posted. This is WAY out of date. You should have this posted:
While the Bonzai Story thing might be deliberate (if so, it's pretty funny), but the Service Badge must be changed! I would do it, but I'm uncomfortable changing other people's userpages. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's the way the story generator works, actually. It was used in the now-classic novel Atlanta Nights to write one chapter, but I haven't actually done any editing to it my version yet. I'll try to rewrite it a bit more coherently when I finish the current task though. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
FBI-10-most-wanted-list fugitives[edit]
Where do I get the "FBI-10-most-wanted-list fugitives" to put on my user page? *joke* davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ensuring vandalism[edit]
The truth slips out. Still, anyone could make a mistake like that with his whole body vibrating. ;) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Portal peer review[edit]
Hi, I've added a "Selected anniversaries" section to Portal:University of Oxford, following your great suggestion. Would you mind taking a look, when you get a chance, and commenting further at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/University of Oxford/archive1? Thanks in advance, BencherliteTalk 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Something like Portal:University of Oxford/On this day/December 9, perhaps? BencherliteTalk 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Request for Assistance[edit]
I am inviting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group in on the discussion of Move/name change/notability/merge discussion on New England Institute of Religious Research Currently PelleSmith (talk · contribs) and Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) seem to have reached a roadblock in discourse with Cirt (talk · contribs). Any help would be appreciated! Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- John, this above comment appears to be spamming across multiple users' pages in violation of WP:CANVASS (note especially the last part mentioning me in particular in the message, instead of a neutrally-worded message). See also, Special:Contributions/Weaponbb7. Perhaps you could give a note to the user about this? Cirt (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- The following guidelines for cross-posting "friendly notices" have wide acceptance among Wikipedians:
- Be open. Do not make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages.
- i stated that i was sending messages to people related to the Relevant topic, namely the institute so thus the limited 6 or 7 members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group as well as members or the Religion workgroup who descibe themselves to focus on NRM
- Be polite. Wikiquette issues are extra-important when a message is likely to be read by many people.
- Check
- Avoid redundancy. Rather than copying the same five-page essay to twenty talk pages, write it once, in the place where it is most relevant, and then link to it.
- ok again no mistake here brief blurb at best
- Do not use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away). Also note that running bots without authorization is almost guaranteed to get both your account and the bot account blocked.
- Check
- Cirt Assume good faith. i am relatively new here i say relatively because it is only within a 6 month period or so that i started understanding wikipedia's purpose and beginning to take seriously, and only within a few weeks sorting through the multitude of lengthy policies quite and have just discovered a new one i am one aware of. Yet you in this recent discussion you have accused me of COI because my edits a subject that is of great interest to me and before you try and take that statement and try to accuse me of COI to fit your view of me i mean academic interest not any personal stake. you have taken a relatively combative stance with me. i have not attacked you personally but rather articles you have but together. your combative stance is rather difficult to deal with and for the record i do not appreciate it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The following guidelines for cross-posting "friendly notices" have wide acceptance among Wikipedians:
I happened to see[edit]
I happened to see a request for comment of Rjanag. I don't the ins and outs of Wikipedia so I did not leave a comment. However, if those 24 instances of "fuck you, bitch" are true as listed, this person would have be fired a long time ago if he/she worked for a company. Is this is same Wikipedia that my kids tell me about? They said it was an encyclopedia. JB50000 (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Not there[edit]
John, I checked every edition of Melton's Encyclopedia and no sign of the New England Institute of Religious Research. Did you mean "The New England Institute of Metaphysical Studies"? Couldn't have been the first few additions, btw, since he published the first few before the Institute was even around (1978 1st addition). Of course I checked them anyway. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:Christianity browsebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list[edit]
Do you still propose the same additions to the core topics work group listed here as you did eight months ago? i.e. do you still want to add Augustine of Hippo? Carlaude:Talk 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ping[edit]
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yo ho ho[edit]
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
Cleanliness is next to godliness[edit]
Just because I am slightly overweight and bought that hand-me-down from Sarah Palin is no reason to imply that I'm a slob. Don't forget that cleanliness is next to godliness. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you![edit]
Hi John, and thank you for the seasonal greeting! I have to admit that, when I got the orange box saying I had a new message, my first thought was uh-oh, another vandal. Anyway, it was a very cheering result when I actually saw what you wrote. All the best, and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you have access?[edit]
I came across this article by Bryan Wilson some time ago: link to article. Unfortunately, I've been completely unable to get a copy of the original article in the Indian Missiological Review (or even gather page number or other bibliographical info for the article). There are several statements in the Christian Conventions article which could be sourced to this, rather than weaker sources. Could you keep an eye out for this next time you have access to bibliographic search tools? • Astynax talk 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Mentorship[edit]
Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here
- Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
- Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
- Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
- User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".
For the Arbitration Committee,
Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
User conduct RFC[edit]
I'm going to start working on a draft RfC regarding User:ChildofMidnight, with whom I know you have recently had some experience. Recent contentious ANI threads relating in whole or in part to C of M have made it clear that some feel a user conduct RfC is the way to go in terms of addressing concerns about an editor who clearly is an asset to the project but also engages in problematic behavior. I'm willing to do the lion's share in terms of RfC preparation, but obviously I will need at least one other person to certify the RfC in order for it to be valid. I believe you have made some efforts to resolve issues with this editor (e.g. [13] [14] [15]) and as such would have standing to certify a user-conduct RfC per the rules for that type of dispute resolution.
Personally I'm somewhat loath to embark on this endeavor (I've never started a user RfC before), but a number of people have called for it and it does seem to be the rational next step in terms of addressing these issues. I'd understand if you'd rather not involve yourself, but as I said another certifier is all I really need (rather than someone to go searching for diffs for hours, for example), and you seemed a likely candidate given your recent interactions with C of M. Note that the goal for me in this RfC will just be to take the community temperature regarding ChildofMidnight's behavior and possibly point the way toward some solutions. I'm not at all interested in a dramafest or getting anyone in "trouble." I'll be working on the draft at User:Bigtimepeace/DraftRFC but obviously would not be taking it live until at least one other person would be willing to certify it. You're welcome to edit the draft or just sign-on as a co-certifier and leave it there. Sorry to trouble you with this but it seemed like the best course of action. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- We might be reading the requirements for an RfC a bit differently. By "same dispute" I do not take the requirements to mean one single incident on ANI, for example. The "dispute" in this case would be C of M's ongoing behavioral issues which have already engendered reams of commentary, and on that basis both you and I could certify an RfC right now in my view (it is fully my intention to certify the RfC) since we have talked to C of M about the issue within the past couple of weeks.
- I'm unclear from your reply whether you are willing to co-certify an RfC or not which is basically my only question here (I'm not worried about deletion or anything like that, it's quite easy to save the text of the draft RfC were that to happen, and draft RfCs are indeed encouraged per policy). As some of the diffs I've gathered have already shown (and I think what I have so far is essentially the tip of the iceberg in terms of showing problematic behavior—I promise you there is no shortage of evidence), numerous editors have been calling for an RfC on C of M. There's really no other avenue to pursue next in terms of dispute resolution, and I don't think waiting for the next incident to crop up on ANI (or wherever) and then hoping some other editor makes a comment on C of M's talk page is necessary or desirable in terms of a solution. I think you (and me) can certify an RfC right now, and I'm confident that it would not be deleted once the draft was taken "live" since this is something that a significant number of editors have been calling for, and since I think both of us have tried to resolve the "dispute" with C of M (as have numerous others going back months and months). If you're simply not interested in signing on to something like this obviously that's fine, but do let me know directly either way if you can. I do think this situation needs to be dealt with though, and it's very difficult to get an RfC started even when numerous people are calling for it because it requires time commitment and willingness on the part of a couple editors to certify it. I think we would very much be doing the community a favor by starting a user conduct RfC on C of M, and if we don't do that I think the inevitable "why hasn't an RfC been started?" comment will appear again on ANI in the next couple of weeks.
- If you like you can reply here as I will check back later this evening. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You may know more about filing RfCUs than I do, so, if you think it will fly, by all means. I have not myself had that much experience with the process, and based what I said on my own understanding which may well be flawed. If you structure the RfCU to take into account earlier incidents, and I can verify that I was involved in them, I wouldn't have any objections to saying I did what I did. I don't remember if I myself ever actually tried to resolve the matter in question with CoM in advance, but I'll check the records. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have to run now (food co-op shift) but I'll check back with you later tonight and see if you've had a chance to look into this further. I think the three diffs I supplied at the top of this thread demonstrate an effort on your part to address issues with C of M, though of course it's still up to you whether you would want to sign on or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for being willing to certify this, I was traveling yesterday and have not-so-great internet access for the next couple of weeks during the holidays. I do want to get the RfC up and out by the end of the weekend though and then leave it up to the community to comment. I'll be adding a lot of info in the next couple of days, and then will run the final draft by you to make sure you are okay with it since you certified it (basically what you'll see is just more of what's there already though). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm mostly done with the draft RfC less checking the diffs and such to make sure I don't make any copy and paste mistakes, moving a few things around, and the like. I've already moved a couple of the diffs you used to cite your effort to resolve the dispute into a different section, and added a couple of diffs of C of M replying directly to you which show that the effort to resolve the dispute was far from successful. It doesn't really change the substance of anything, but it seemed better given the format of an RfC.
- Thanks for being willing to certify this, I was traveling yesterday and have not-so-great internet access for the next couple of weeks during the holidays. I do want to get the RfC up and out by the end of the weekend though and then leave it up to the community to comment. I'll be adding a lot of info in the next couple of days, and then will run the final draft by you to make sure you are okay with it since you certified it (basically what you'll see is just more of what's there already though). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have to run now (food co-op shift) but I'll check back with you later tonight and see if you've had a chance to look into this further. I think the three diffs I supplied at the top of this thread demonstrate an effort on your part to address issues with C of M, though of course it's still up to you whether you would want to sign on or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You may know more about filing RfCUs than I do, so, if you think it will fly, by all means. I have not myself had that much experience with the process, and based what I said on my own understanding which may well be flawed. If you structure the RfCU to take into account earlier incidents, and I can verify that I was involved in them, I wouldn't have any objections to saying I did what I did. I don't remember if I myself ever actually tried to resolve the matter in question with CoM in advance, but I'll check the records. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you want you can/should take a look at the draft and make sure it looks okay to you, obviously offering suggestions or simply making changes if you think it doesn't, but I think it's rather straightforward and is largely ready to go. I'm going to offer C of M one more chance to address the problem without an RfC by leaving a note on his talk page, because personally that's the option I prefer and I really do see this RfC as a matter of last resort. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Your Action is Requested[edit]
Dear Respected Administrator. As a long time wikipedia user I notice that you often manage the Hogennkal Falls Please as per the recommendation based initiation by Omnipaedista it was concluded by all editors that Kannada and [[Tamil] names should appear side by side. Please use your wisdom to implement the consciousness based decision that you have reverted. NOT NAADAPRIYA. FROM MULTI USER SYSTEM76.212.15.89 (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Merger proposal[edit]
Um ... when someone proposes a merger, where are you supposed to debate about it ? It's just a big sign there which leaves little room for discussion. Anyways, my rationale for creating a separate entry on passive euthanasia was that there was already a sub-division on voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia, which are ethical categories that are somewhat analoguous to the active/passive euthanasia dichotomy. ADM (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I have created the alerts page with a simple placeholder. I was unsure on the format to be used and having queried with an arbitrator there is no simlar page to base it off and I was told that its probably down to the mentors to build the page. Ill be more than happy to lend a hand if you wish. Ping me if you do. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I be shot for being so worthless?[edit]
I gots a question. There is a guy that has an obvious negative bias against Glenn Beck, and he continuously edits the article in ways that are not NPOV, or even within the guidelines. (Examples 1, 2, and 3.) Is there a specific place that I can go to report him for this and maybe get him removed from the page for a while, if for no other reason to show him that his blatant NPOV crap won't be tolerated? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- If they're vandalising, you need to go to AIV. If it's a simple conflict of interest, then you go to COIN. Also, you're hardly worthless if you simply don't know where to go. I've been here for ages and I still have trouble navigating on occasion. It's the vandals who are worthless. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- True dat (in reference to the vandals), but I still feel worthless. I'm just glad I have someone to turn to for help. Thanks for the help, Jade. And you too, John. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Crap. I took what you said completely the wrong way. That's my bad. I'm just going to log off and try again tomorrow. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the meantime, you should seriously consider orphaning me. It would save you a lot of trouble in the long run. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- (pokes) Oi. I self-pity too, but I don't see what you've done wrong to warrant this. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jade. I was a little mad at you yesterday after reading the above post, but after giving it a little thought, you were absolutely right. I was throwing a pity party, and it needed breaking up. John, ignore the "orphaning me" comment. And thank you both. I appreciate it. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, part of my idea was to piss you off. Nothing breaks me out of self-pity faster. In retrospect, however, you are not me, so it was a silly risk to take. Sorry. However, I'm glad it did work. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jade. I was a little mad at you yesterday after reading the above post, but after giving it a little thought, you were absolutely right. I was throwing a pity party, and it needed breaking up. John, ignore the "orphaning me" comment. And thank you both. I appreciate it. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- (pokes) Oi. I self-pity too, but I don't see what you've done wrong to warrant this. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the meantime, you should seriously consider orphaning me. It would save you a lot of trouble in the long run. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Crap. I took what you said completely the wrong way. That's my bad. I'm just going to log off and try again tomorrow. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- True dat (in reference to the vandals), but I still feel worthless. I'm just glad I have someone to turn to for help. Thanks for the help, Jade. And you too, John. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Bacon WikiCup points[edit]
Are you considering making an article to score 5 points towards the Bacon WikiCup? By the way, it should be noted that this is the first ever specialised WikiCup in Wikipedia history.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 23:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Stubs can earn 5 points but they should be of a certain quality ie. At least have a good description of the subject, preferably have a picture or similar material and an outside source such as an external link, or at best, one or more inline citations, just so that there is already some content to work with and build on. And they should be tagged as a stub as such. More preferably, well written articles with lots of content can score 7 points, once again, if done to a certain standard of quality. Disambiguation pages are not counted as "articles" but could score a full 5 points depending on the situation . Redirects are strictly only 1 point if worth any points at all, as very little work needs to be done. There are many ways to assess the point system but because they ways of contributing to Wikipedia content is so complex, and yet, can be kept to a criteria whilst allowing for some special exceptions, the Bacon WikiCup points allocations in particular are distributed in a manner that is as fair and somewhat consistent to ensure that the points reflect as good a view of the overall contribution put in by individual editors as possible ie. the contribution put in to the bacon-related content on Wikipedia.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 23:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Entries from ref with same page number[edit]
You know, you can combine these with ref="lastnamepagenumber" ? Cirt (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Rollback[edit]
According to this page, you are an admin willing to consider granting rollback to editors. So I'd like to request rollback permission. If there's anything else I need to tell you, please let me know. Brambleclawx (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I appreciate all the insight into these factors. You are a member of WikiProject Warriors, so I assume you have a general idea how much vandalism is present there. As you are an admin, I'm going to trust that you know best.
Brambleclawx (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays[edit]
Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
Manual of Style[edit]
Hi John, I've created a draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Manual_of_Style. Please let me know what you think of it; I'd like to add a reference to it at [16] at some point. Much of the general wording is taken from existing project-wide guidelines and policies, and I've tried to come up with some basic information on the content structure points you mentioned (which you might want to expand or modify). Can be after the hols though. Cheers, --JN466 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit war brewing[edit]
There is about to be a 3RR breach between Jimintheatl and myself at Glenn Beck's BLP. Since he just lied to the world in his edit summary, saying that he was doing this, "per talk page, where Joshuaingram was the only dissenting voice," and NO ONE has mentioned this on the talk page, but it has been reverted by someone else before, I refuse to back down. I just thought you might want to know, since you have recently taken an interest in this particular article. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the Glenn Beck talk page where I have reposted the archived discussion where diggy was the only editor objecting to inclusion of a New Yorker article, on specious grounds(i.e.' he ain't gonna read no dang libruh magzeen!)Jimintheatl (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it you would address this, both the false accusation and the underlying edit/page protection. Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- What? You don't write? You don't call?Jimintheatl (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it you would address this, both the false accusation and the underlying edit/page protection. Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry we didn't get the chance to chat. I'm off for non-internet spaces for ten days or so. Hope you and yours have happy holidays. See you in 2010(already?)Jimintheatl (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the Glenn Beck talk page where I have reposted the archived discussion where diggy was the only editor objecting to inclusion of a New Yorker article, on specious grounds(i.e.' he ain't gonna read no dang libruh magzeen!)Jimintheatl (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss[edit]
I have started a discussion regarding character profile formatting on the Warriors character lists. See here. Your opinion will be valued. Brambleclawx (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
My day[edit]
Many thanks for that! I will aim to enjoy it. Happy Christmas & New Year to you & yours. My Wiki-Christmas card is here. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
RfC is live[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is now up, and I'll be posting a note to ChildofMidnight momentarily as well as a notice on WP:AN. Apparently those who are certifying should sign the RfC after it goes live even if they signed the draft version, so it would be great if you could just take a second to update your signature (and therefore the timestamp) in this section. Beyond that I don't think there's anything more you need to do. Hopefully some good will come of all of this, and thanks again for being willing to certify this request for comment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Signature updated. Sorry for the delay in responding. It has been an "interesting" day and the e-mail has been kind of more than I've every actually seen before. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Over-tagged? or not?[edit]
I was about to tag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Peter%27s_tomb for the Death project and noticed the christinity with a cath sub cat and micro-state (vatican sub part) and rome and italy tags which in all honestly i fail to see the point of them - however before I suggest removing them (or simply removed with a concise edit summary) - are you up with the cath project - is there any functional reason to have all the found tags in your opinion ? (just checking) I was going to add death project as it is concerned with tombs and cemetries - but I am concerned that if wander into over tagged territory like this i need some checking with others before I swathe through with a sword over-tagged items or am adding even more as well with the death project tag :) SatuSuro 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
commiserations[edit]
Oh dear - I am more concerned about your loss than the tagging issue, just before christmas. I do hope your christmas is a good one regardless - SatuSuro 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Why, what's wrong? Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays[edit]
Dear John, wishing you a Happy Christmas, and using this occasion to thank you: for all the work you and your fellow mentors have done supporting Mattisse, which really deserves to be acknowledged, and for being you, of course. --JN466 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a possible issue?[edit]
Recently, the article Dan Jolley was edited by someone using an account called Danjolley. Is this an issue to Wikipedia? I'm not sure if this is the Dan Jolley, I suppose it could be a fan of his or something, but I'm not sure, since the user does not have a user page or a talk page. Brambleclawx 19:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit[edit]
Hello. I realise I am posting a lot on your page. I am sorry about that.
I would like for you to copyedit Warriors (novel series), preferably before Jan. 4, 2010, as I would like to nominate this article for GA status. If there are any issues, please tell me, but I would like a copyeditor to go over it before I nominate it. Here is a general list of what I have done:
- Grammar and prose
- fix redundancy/repetition
- fix references
- add references
- check links
- add links
- italics
- heading check
- titles
- it's and its
- location and date format check
- external link check
- makes sense?
- conciseness
- no run-ons
- put through MS Word spell check in US English
- verb tense
- final read-over
- ask for copyediting from You.
Sorry about bothering you so much.
Brambleclawx has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Here's a cookie as a present :)
Happy Holidays, Brambleclawx 22:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:List of ThunderClan cats (Warriors)#Another discussion-Familial relationships. Your opinion would be valued. Brambleclawx 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Wishing You Happy Holidays[edit]
Season's Greetings and Happy Holidays and may the New Year be a bright one. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You know it has to be asked ...[edit]
How's Christmas on Mars? :-)
Happy holidays and many beautiful moments throughout 2010 ... whatever crowd hatches then. Cheers. (PS, My IQ is the same as yours ... if you reverse the order of the digits. lol)
(P.S. I will be disappointed if I don't get a House-worthy retort... Take as long as you need to come up with one. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Violation of site policy going on at page List of new religious movements[edit]
Heads up. Please see [17] and [18]. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I was approached by User:Tenmei and asked if I would be interested in serving on a Mentor Committee. He found me on the list of users from Utah. His invitation and my response are on my Talk Page. (Taivo (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Please help improve this article. Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Cape Verde Military Police[edit]
i have made an Cape verde military police and cant come on an article could you help me there is a website that explains some miltary police guys in praia fighting against riots i think just an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questchest (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Akra[edit]
Hi John. Hope you had a nice Christmas.
I'm getting interested in Judas Maccabees. One item of note is the creation of a citadel at the Jerusalem temple by his enemy Antiohus IV. This citadel is called Akra in some accounts, but the name Akra is also applied to city areas around the Temple. Anyway, it's complicated and I'm still sorting out the facts as best I can.
I've learned that starting an article, even a stub, can bring editors with some knowledge our of the woodwork. So I thought I'd start Akra (Temple Citadel). Then some questions arose, and I'd like your advice.
First: MOS capitalization: Akra (Temple Citadel) or Akra (temple citadel) or Akra (Temple citadel)? Maybe Akra (Jerusalem)?
Second see Akra which dabs to Aqrah. It's got a couple of home-made see alsos. Some sort DAB'ing is necessary, but I really don't know where to start. Maybe Akra could and should be a main article, with see alsos.
I'm confused, and maybe you have an insight? You often do. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC) PS if you have any background info about the time period (175-160 BC), lay it on me!
Aloha John Carter! Just notifying you of this portal peer review as suggested on WP:PPREV. Any input you could give would be appreciated. Thanks, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Mentorship[edit]
Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, please allow me to share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- May I offer a proposal? Please consider replacing your username with your "signature" (four tildes ~~~~) in the list of "active mentors" at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. This is necessary step in a constructive direction.
- You may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term. --Tenmei (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD[edit]
I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow![edit]
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Dear John, I wish to echo the statements made by JN466 above and thank you for sticking by me in spite of my mistakes. I am trying very hard and deeply hope not to let you down. I appreciate all that you have done for me. Here's wishing you a wonderful and glorious New Year. Warmest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Removal of sourced info at article Landmark Education[edit]
Hi John, I hope you are doing well in the New Year :). Could you please have a look at recent edits by Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs) at the article Landmark Education, and revisit your comments at Talk:Landmark_Education#Removal_of_sourced_material_by_Nwlaw63? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Update: So far, Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs) has removed the sourced info, twice: [19], and [20]. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You have mail[edit]
Hi John, emailed you a couple of days ago. Hope you've received it? Best wishes for a happy new year, Durova393 03:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Service awards proposal[edit]
|
Hello, John Carter/Archive October 2010! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.
If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC) |
New year[edit]
Trust it finds you well and recovered (In every sense that may mean to you at this time) - your absence has given me a sense of daring in that I have replaced some christianity/catholic tags with pure catholic tags - you are most welcome if and when you re-emerge to chastise/berate/sanction/whatever me for such activity - roaming through the back streets of categories such as death and terrorism it seems catholicism is a natural progression. SatuSuro 04:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
A relief to see you back trust all is ok SatuSuro 14:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do come back some time :) - your one man haiti wiki project is unfortunately looking very neglected in view of the current disaster there SatuSuro 07:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The 25 DYK Nomination Medal[edit]
|
The 25 DYK Nomination Medal | |
| Congratulations on passing the milestone of 25 DYK Nominations. Good work! Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) |
The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal[edit]
|
The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | |
| Congratulations on passing the milestone of 25 DYK creations and expansions. Nice going! Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC) |
Help with a user who maintains a user page attacking me?[edit]
Can you help out with this?
User:Tom Butler#A perfect quote.
It refers directly to me and I would like it taken down. Tom Butler does not like me, and so I'd like to get an outside, uninvolved user to advocate for its removal. Would you be willing?
Thanks,
ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Shipwrecks and Ships merger discussion.[edit]
Hello. I'm posting this notice here since you're listed as a member of the Shipwrecks project. A merge proposal has been suggested on the project talk page here. Suggestions and ideas are welcome. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
One question[edit]
I have started article on Saint Save on one my subpage ([21]-this is just beggining I plann to fix many mistakes in this tex). I also have one question: is good solution to use mainly literature on Serbian language in this article? (because there are no many works on English).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk:List of new religious movements[edit]
Hi, hope you are doing well. Some questions for you at Talk:List of new religious movements. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal[edit]
You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.
A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.
After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
- gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
- ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Anabaptist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Mammals Notice Board[edit]
 |
WikiCup 2010 January newsletter[edit]
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to 
Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than 
Hunter Kahn (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to 
Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Consensus question[edit]
In AFDs, no consensus is a default to keep. What about in articles? In the Barack Obama article, I started a section discussing the Political Positions section. I raised several issues, like what positions to select (let the politician's campaign decide / use what issues they talk about or use what the news talks about?), what time point to use, what to do if positions change, etc. Because of the difficulty in answering these questions, I suggested to eliminate the section. Later, I suggested that we have a brief summary of the man's 2008 election positions and have a 2012 sub-section later. We just can't have his current positions because that would be allowing a candidate to use Wikipedia as advertising.
Nobody has violently come out in support of keeping, but there is some mention of keep. There is more mention of trimming it. But, to be fair, no consensus either way, including no consensus to keep. If there is no consensus to keep, is that a delete?
I seek not to argue but to see an opinion on what consensus is. The WP:Consensus gives no guidance on no consensus. The WP:No consensus is just an essay, unlike WP:Consensus. It gives not enough guidance because it says that no consensus does not mean that the status quo stays.
What is your opinion on consensus in general? JB50000 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary[edit]
This editor has not edited since December - yet people seem intent on leaving messages as if he is currently active - check the contributions first ... he is not here... SatuSuro 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom process[edit]
Is this something you need to know? Your name is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? --Tenmei (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- As you know, ArbCom remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols for confirming mentors were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model. Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted at WP:AC/CN. This seems not to have worked.
- I have now sought "approval" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty. This message is necessary because the standard template requires me to confirm notifying you. --Tenmei (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."
I will follow-up with an e-mail; and I'll explain that you have been inexplicably off-wiki since late December. --Tenmei (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."
"Cush"[edit]
I am concerned about Cush (talk · contribs) and his blatant uncivil behavior here. Particularly since i found this old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush. I frankly find his behavior uncivil and unproductive especially an attack on me in the edit description "reply to a fundamentalist." Based on Issues brought up in the Previous RFC and the edits i have checked over he seems to have prejudice against anyone he considers "Religionist" and attacks statements they make if not the user themsleves. Do you think RFC is the right solution here? Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
RFC opened[edit]
An RfC on User:Cush's behavior has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush2.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 February newsletter[edit]
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). 
Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), 
Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), 
Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and 
Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
impossible translation?[edit]
There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say --93.130.249.56 (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sint Maarten Links[edit]
John, could you please voice your opinion on the Talk:Sint Maarten page. I believe an admin went roughshod on the links collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoCatch (talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything OK buddy?[edit]
Just received the news you haven't edited since December 24. Over three months absence. I sincerely hope you are still with us and wish you a speedy recovery. Best regards. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 12:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. If you're taking time off, enjoy. If you're unwell, get well soon. --JN466 17:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev[edit]
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Open chapel or Capilla abierta??[edit]
I just looked at Wikipedia:Article titles but didnt get much help. Im working on an article about open chapels/capilla abiertas (the side chapels built in many churchs from the 16th century in Mexico for the indigenous) and Im wondering if the article should be named in English or Spanish (with the other as a redirect). What do you think?Thelmadatter (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 March newsletter[edit]
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Logic work group articles[edit]
I have nominated Category:Logic work group articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Greg Bard 18:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification[edit]
As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a gentle reminder[edit]
This user has not edited under this name since christmas 2009 SatuSuro 10:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Tenmei mentorship[edit]
Your input is desired at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I cast a wide net as part of an outside-the-box search for a cohort of co-mentors. My best interests are fulfilled only if their investments of time and thought are made easy and effective. I located "mentors" (congruent with Mentorship) and I located "mentors" (congruent with WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship). I submitted names to ArbCom for approval. As you can see for yourself, that "clarification" thread is still open.
- In this context of initial success, please allow me to thank you again for what you did months ago. It may seem like a small thing, but others were explicit in explaining that they only agreed to consider helping me because you were willing to try. You may be interested in reading what I posted about you in the collapsed text at Response to Coren.
- Do you know the French expression "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" (the more things change, the more they stay the same"). As you return from a wiki-break, I hope you expected to find my circumstances much changed. We all hope for many things which turn out differently than expected.
- Yesterday, I contacted each ArbCom member who commented on the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread -- Smith, Coren, Davies, Risker, Carcharoth, SirFozzie, Hersfold; and in addition, I reached out to two others who commented on another thread on the same page -- Newyorkbrad, Shell. This modest effort engendered three vague, unhelpful responses:
- Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010
- This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010
- Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010
- I construe Shell's comment as a suggestion that I contact each ArbCom member who participated directly in Tang Dynasty. I will give this some thought.
- In each "ping", I explicitly invite ArbCom to explain to you and the other identified "mentors." For redundant clarity, my words were these: "please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me." Was it necessary to underline these words?
- ArbCom's core error is two-fold: (a) failure to answer direct questions from me; and (b) failure to communicate with you. WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship projects your role as some kind of ArbCom agents; but any evidence of constructive engagement is missing. This is an ArbCom-created stumbling block we need to acknowledge. --Tenmei (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Albania TF update.[edit]
Hi! Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/Albania/Participants will soon be replaced by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania/Members, I transferred your name to the latter. Thank you for your contributions! --Sulmues talk 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Salem Witchcraft Trials Taskforce[edit]
This is in response to your request of 25 March 2009. Please replace what you removed from the talk pages of the articles. There is nothing wrong with having talk pages with multiple linkages to various task forces. There was nothing wrong with our being linked to these articles. It was a bad idea to remove our linkages to these articles. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The Banners[edit]
Sir or Ma'm:
I do not wish to turn this into a problem for anyone at all, However: I disagree strongly with your actions and suspect that your stated reasons may have little validity. Replace our banners! I will make my own adjustments to the task group as I become inclined to do so, and as I become aware of the necessity for such. I am unaware of any PUBLIC consesus other than what I have stated here. Your actions have been premature at best.
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
MIA[edit]
Dear John Carter,
I have placed you on the list of missing Wikipedians, as you have been gone for 3 months now. If and when you return, feel free to remove yourself from the list. Brambleclawx 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedTook you off the list, Nice to have you back Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to email me John. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. meco (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 April newsletter[edit]
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to 
ThinkBlue (submissions) and 
Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants 
Stone (submissions) and 
White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty[edit]
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:
1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.
2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:
- Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
- Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Saints in the Signpost[edit]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Saints for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Importance rating of William Henry Conley[edit]
You have recently changed the importance rating of this article. It has been raised to high importance again and you may be interested in adding your thoughts at Talk:William Henry Conley#Article importance. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Bibliographies[edit]
Hi. I added some info to the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (development)#Question regarding bibliography articles, and was wondering if you had [seen it] any feedback? (No rush, I just don't want it to get archived without having been seen!) Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliable Sources Board[edit]
John Carter,
I saw your post on the Reliable Sources board and I hope you will provide us with some more specific information. In order to figure it out on my own I looked at some of the pages you have been editing at. I did see a mention of the reference work at Talk:Ebionites. I also saw a discussion there of the recent book "The Jesus Dynasty". I have an additional review of this book if you want it -- from Biblotheca sacra. It also slams it ... or at least seriously questions its reliability. Just send me an email if you want it.Griswaldo (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
WP Saints[edit]
I thought you added your comments to the WP Saints interview, but I can't find them anymore. What happened? -Mabeenot (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Jubilees[edit]
Thanks you for your words at Talk:Jubilees regarding NPOV. Please note that there is a similar problem at Talk:Tower of Babel which is turning into a proxy for the debate that belongs at Talk:Jubilees. Leadwind he keeps edit-warring the same gratuitous, disputed, POV material about Jubilees into Tower of Babel despite the fact that his references are off-topic there according to WP:SYNT etc. I appreciate your looking at that page too. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back![edit]
Good to see you editing again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 May newsletter[edit]
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, 
Theleftorium (submissions) and 
Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Blablabla[edit]
- Reading your user page, I can't help but think some of the information there is duplicated -- much like some kind of recursive cut-n-paste. Was this intentional?
- I know you've been around for a while. Since you changed user names, it's hard for old farts like yours truly to remember exactly when -- could you add that fact on your user page? (Did you actually open your original account in January 2007? I thought you've been around for much longer than that.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Mediation[edit]
I've opened a mediation page here. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to say welcome back[edit]
You were missed - good to see you are back - just noticed recent edits - back into good form - cheers SatuSuro 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Category rename proposal[edit]
I think that the category you created Category:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work gorup members should instead be called Category:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work group members. I hope you are amenable to this category rename proposal. (This is a re-post of a message also left on your /IP talk page. Please note that the matter was taken up at WP:CFD (where it seems to be making little headway for some reason)). 24.44.14.186 (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Bradsp[edit]
Hi. User:Bradsp is continuing to be problematic at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and its associated Talk page. See also User_talk:Bradsp#Articles_for_deletion_nomination_of_George_Nathaniel_Henry_Peters and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Nathaniel_Henry_Peters. Because of the existing dispute, I would prefer if you could look over things and then see if you would like to raise a Wikiquette alert or take other action. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Invitation[edit]
You are invited to participate in WikiProject Disability, a project dedicated to developing and improving disability related articles. Bib (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Persian Religions[edit]
A while back I think you wrote some things on Mandaeism, this message I think regards you more than others since you are a member of Wikiproject:Zoroastrianism I would like to support a proposition in Which Wikiproject:Zoroastrianism would be renamed Wikiproject:Persian Religions. This would be a good Idea because I Mandaeism and Manicheism are religions lacking any project that greatly focuses on them and both were influanced by Zoroastrianism. However how do you suggest I do this. --Zaharous (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are invited to join Wikiproject Gnosticism, as for myself I only know about Manicheism and Mandaeism, however the Project I hope will be based on more human contact than administration. I believe once we get a structure there can be a focus and collaboration between those with common knowledge and interest. It is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnosticism -Zaharous (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
on animated films....[edit]
For animated film projects, when is "filming" considered to have begun? Is it with the commencement of character design and actual animation creation involving particpation of director, artists, and animators? Or is it only considered to have "begun" once the animators finish their work and voice actors begin their own contributions to the final product? Thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just joined the Anguilla task force, and noticed that a) it's inactive, and b) you're the only other member =D. I'm interested in furthering the development of Anguilla-related articles as most are frankly in a very poor state, I'm keen to drum up some interest. Would you like to help ? I'd like to see a gradual increase in editing activity around the area, and possibly a Wikiproject Anguilla. Regards. Claritas § 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Portal Link Bot[edit]
Hello, as a user interested in portals you may be interested in participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DodoBot 2. Happy editing! - EdoDodo talk 13:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 June newsletter[edit]
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were 
Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) 
Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Catholic projects[edit]
Let me know what subgroup/project you'd like to form. If it's something I can contribute to, I will be happy to do so.Malke2010 01:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: Misrepresentation of source in Ebionites[edit]
The problem is that indices are often selective, & thus omit references to crucial sections. (I'm not downplaying your judgment, but listings in an index is a weak reed to lean on.) Let me get ahold of Tabor's book -- it will take a day or two -- & see if I can make use of it. As for off-wiki communications, you are always welcome to email me about anything. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Somalia Peer Review[edit]
Hi there, I've asked for a peer review on the Somalia article in hopes of getting the ball rolling for improving it. I saw you are on the WikiProject Somalia page and thought you might be interested in participating? Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sections[edit]
No problem at all John. Please feel free to comment where you like. That discussion was no gem to be left undisturbed. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Kripalu Center[edit]
Hi. You participated in the past in discussion about Kripalu Center. The article issues are not resolved, although one of the principal discussants has retired from Wikipedia (apparently due to this article). I got involved after the article's name appeared on a couple of noticeboards and a user talk page that I had watchlisted. I don't have the time or inclination to address everything about the article, and I think that multiple sets of eyes would be helpful there. Could you please resume watching/participating there? --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- You made some comments on my talk page which I've blanked.
- Please don't use such a needlessly condescending tone, expecially while making rather inaccurate characterizations.
- "Wikipedia Policy" in essence, is a rather simple and well-understood matter to which I adhere. I do rightfully object to "wikilawyering" and inaccurate characterizations of reliable sources and their acceptable uses.
- Condescension is never welcome; never constructive.
- If you'd like to participate on relevant discussion page, then by all means of course do so.
- But please, no more similar side messages on my user-talk page.
- Thanks,
- Also, one might think you'd frown upon private and personal solicitations for your contribution to a particular article, rather than eagerly responding as you have.
- You can find some guideline or essay concerning this. But I simply leave it to your well-proven discretion.
Calamitybrook (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- And I would request once again, because in your apparent arrogance you seem to have forgotten it, that Calamitybrook remain of my page. I have no reason to believe any reasonable person would count your own condescending and non-constructive comments above even remotely acceptable. How you do consider them such simply indicates at least to me your own clear blindness to your own obvious faults. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 July newsletter[edit]
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by 
Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
VPC[edit]
 | You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion. |
— raekyT 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Non-Christian saints[edit]
Category:Non-Christian saints, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Ebionite RfC[edit]
I agree that the RfC you propose is probably too complex to be practical. And your concerns about Eisenman & Tabor may be an overreaction: on one hand, they do have satisfactory credentials & on the other I haven't been able to find any authorities in this area who don't present their own problems. (I can provide an example or two if you're curious.) What I suggest you do is to focus on the links to the Neo-Ebionites, & whether they are fringe -- or even relevant to the historical group. (I would be surprised if there is a real connection between the two groups: there was this event known as the Islamic Conquest which eliminated a lot of Christian communities in the Middle East.) That also seems to be the primary item which is troubling you about this article, & resolving this would be the easiest battle to win. -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. Your comment -- "it also is probably either the first or second most important one regarding the early Jerusalem church, which is one of the most important topics within the field of Early Christianity, and I have to think that it deserves a better article than this" -- could be said about a lot of Wikipedia articles. I used to think that the secret of Wikipedia's success was that most of it could be written by anyone with common sense & a decent education; one didn't need to be an expert. Now I believe that only sometimes; maybe the experts would be able to keep things untangled. Then again, there are a lot of pricks amongst the professional expert class, so even they can't get it right much of the time. As a result, we should be to get some of the details right & wait for the opportunities to reverse the damage when we can. PS, Sorry to sound more cynical than usual, but I had a recent unpleasant encounter with the inmates running the asylum, & fear I only reinforced their desire to continue their madness. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Review request[edit]
Hi there! I have noticed that you are a member of WP Albania [22]. Can you please review my edits for the Vatican-Albania relations? --Sulmues (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also you may want to review this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albania#Project. Take care. --Sulmues (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming by and for this funny and refreshing comment! --Sulmues (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Some months ago you had suggested that the Christian Conventions article be moved back to Two-by-Twos, because most references seem to use that title (or the more confusing "Cooneyites" label found in some British references). Your reasons seemed good at the time, and I contacted the editor who originally proposed moving to "Christian Conventions". S/he has no objection to moving it back if there is a good rationale for doing so. The group goes under many names, and I don't believe that "Christian Conventions" reflects either unofficial usage, or the official registered names in many/most areas. If you wish to propose moving the article back to "Two-by-Twos" to better reflect references such as Melton, it may be good to decide this. Hopefully it could be approached without veering off into side issues, such as whether or not the group has a name(s). • Astynax talk 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Federated States of Micronesia[edit]
I joined your wikiproject and am glad to help. I have studied the FSM Constitution and will start a page someday. Thanks and God bless! CanonLawJunkie (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Periodicals[edit]
Hi John, You seem to have added links to individual periodicals to a lot of wikiprojects pages. For mathematics there are thousands of different journals and singling out a relativly obscure one does not really help. I guess the same is going to apply to lots of other academic domains.--Salix (talk): 05:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Second that, and add more
- This edit added Journal of the Argentine Chemical Society, to WP:CHEM that would puzzle any WP chemist - it is an obscure journal, among thousands on the topic, and it is not a review journal, but publishes rather technical information.
- [23] [24] These were reverted by another editor, and I fully agree with their summary.
- This edit added a minor journal published in German to a project on English WP. Same here.
- This added a journal on feminism and violence against women to the WikiProject Anti-war.
- This journal does not even have an impact factor and is not indexed by Web of Science or Scopus.
- This journal is on metals and alloys (I know it professionally), it is not focused on elements.
- This one added two journals, one with impact factor = 0.58 (very low) and another without IF.
- This added journal again is not indexed by Web of Science and thus has no impact factor (another obscure journal).
- This one added a link on business news to a project on a country.
- This one added a link saying "Back issues are available for $30 per volume or $10 per issue" and "Advertising" right on its top.
- This edit added a link which right on the top says "For Arab World Agribusiness Magazine Issues, Media Packs, Exhibition, Advertisers and Subscription please check the links below."
etc., etc.
Nearly every single such addition of "resources" was below most WP standards and was reverted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:ELNO and WP:SOAP. The associated edit summaries "more to follow" are really worrying. Please, if you wish to continue with those sections, do settle this issue. Materialscientist (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You may want to contribute to the List of academic journals; and join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- sounds like a good idea. Some abrupt answers: Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media does not strike me as remarkable - I've never heard of it during my professional career (not a strong argument, but I had to know all major science locators); I can't find its WP page, and, most importantly, it appears as an indiscriminate list. What I mean by that is that there are many tens of thousands of journals (many more than 30k in science alone, as I recall, and hundreds of thousands if we count proceedings) and many dozens (hundreds) of journals locators. In science, there are 2 major ones, Web of Science (No1, about 10k journals) and Scopus (No2 somewhat more) - a journal has to pass a thorough review to be included there. Some locators are known by other features, e.g. DOAJ lists exclusively open-access journals (free to read). In summary, yes WP:NOTDIRECTORY does apply simply because of WP:UNDUE and eventually WP:SIZE. Another issue. It just happened so in science that national journals are very unpopular (exceptions, such as PNAS only confirm the rule). As to non-science, what I've experienced in developing countries is that their media is very unstable and very few foreign sources can follow that. In any case, I would ask the project before posting something from Gale Directory on its front page. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (PS speaking of WP:SIZE, your talk is some 220k bytes long)
- Some of your objections are valid. There are a number of poetry magazines which are clearly non-notable, having neither an ISSN number, any sort of academic ties, etc. None of those are being includdd. I am primarily adding those which either directly indicate some form of tie to either a university or professional association, are described as being "community newspapers," which are genreally considered reliable, or are some form of official government publiction or general interest magazine directly related to the WikiProject's stated subjects. Regarding the reliability of foreign newspapers, or even national news sources in the US recently, yeah, reliability is sometimes a factor. However, they still publish a lot of material which is broadly reliable, like, for instance, histories of a government official, a local building or park, the local sports teams, whatever. For the most part, we already have a lot of articles on thsoe subjects, and these sources will generally be reliable for noncontroversial material, like a team's record, the biography of a star player, etc. And, particularly for the national and regional groups, about half of them are my own creations. The reasons they were created was to provide a central point for keeping up with the topics. And, in general, I tend to think that, should I for instance hear the head of government of Yap died in a quick sentence on the top of the hour news, I would be able to go to the relevant project page, find the news sources which deal with that area more substantively, and find hopefully more complete and reliable information. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sir Thomas Bodley would have argued that no poetry magazine is notable. Wonbrainsell (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some of your objections are valid. There are a number of poetry magazines which are clearly non-notable, having neither an ISSN number, any sort of academic ties, etc. None of those are being includdd. I am primarily adding those which either directly indicate some form of tie to either a university or professional association, are described as being "community newspapers," which are genreally considered reliable, or are some form of official government publiction or general interest magazine directly related to the WikiProject's stated subjects. Regarding the reliability of foreign newspapers, or even national news sources in the US recently, yeah, reliability is sometimes a factor. However, they still publish a lot of material which is broadly reliable, like, for instance, histories of a government official, a local building or park, the local sports teams, whatever. For the most part, we already have a lot of articles on thsoe subjects, and these sources will generally be reliable for noncontroversial material, like a team's record, the biography of a star player, etc. And, particularly for the national and regional groups, about half of them are my own creations. The reasons they were created was to provide a central point for keeping up with the topics. And, in general, I tend to think that, should I for instance hear the head of government of Yap died in a quick sentence on the top of the hour news, I would be able to go to the relevant project page, find the news sources which deal with that area more substantively, and find hopefully more complete and reliable information. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Trucks[edit]
Hello John Carter, is it new message for ; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks#Portal ? Thank you very much, you welcome. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Protection.[edit]
I only protected for 3 days since your RFPP request implied it's a fairly clear-cut edit war; if you need more time just let me know or put it back up. Cheers, · Andonic Contact 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
User:AlexJohnTorres12, likely sock of indef-blocked User:Shutterbug[edit]
- User:AlexJohnTorres12, likely sock of indef-blocked User:Shutterbug.
- Similar behavioral evidence, majority edits are WP:SPA-type promo edits on behalf of POV of Church of Scientology organization, promo/spam insertion on page of its leader, etc. (described by another editor as " promotional utterances that add nothing to the biographical article", etc.)
- Similar pattern of history of sock abuse on the account(s), as was with User:Shutterbug, a
Confirmed sock of the account has already been blocked [25] - CU results on technical data said, " The first group of users could be related to Shutterbug based on geolocation of IPs"...
- Per multiple different applicable remedies at WP:ARBSCI, this account has violated multiple site policies and ArbCom directives, including: 1) Block evasion, 2) Abusing multiple accounts, 3) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted, 4) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas, 5) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation, 6) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed, probably others as well, and some from findings of fact.
- The account should be blocked, for all and/or individually any of above reasons, combined with WP:ARBSCI applicable points.
Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 05:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you[edit]
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hellooooo!![edit]
Hi John! Nice to see you about. I sure missed have you about on here for such a long period of time. I was very concerned about you and then when you went AWOL again it had me wondering. I wish you the very best of health! Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion[edit]
Sir, would be appreciated upon the idea at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Asia here there or anywhere - as I have the feeling you might appreciate the intent more than others - cheers SatuSuro 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
AN/I: False accusations of vandalism[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Responding to that... Can you please provide diffs of the "I hate you" type language you allege that he's put into article or article talk pages?
- I haven't found it so far on looking, I am trying to understand what started this specificly.
- Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- John, I don't remember anything like that -- but my memory is unreliable, as my wife frequently reminds me. I looked at the history of Talk:Ebionites around the time I was most recently active on that page, & I didn't see anything resembling what you remember. -- llywrch (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 August newsletter[edit]
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.
- Pool A's winner was
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare. - Pool B's winner was
Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology. - Pool A's close second was
Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology. - Pool B's close second was
ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock. - The first wildcard was
TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago. - The second wildcard was
White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats. - The third wildcard was
Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock. - The fourth wildcard was
William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.
We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. 
Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. 
Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.
Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.
Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
R U O K[edit]
Are you doing ok? You seem a lot more subdued than usual. I try not to take these things too personally, but it's easy to get carried away in the heat of an argument. Try to keep it in perspective, every day above ground is a good day. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am doing fine. I think a lot of the subdued nature is the fact that you are actually, for the most part, no longer indulging in offtopic nonresponsive comments. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Possible edit war[edit]
Hi John Carter, there may be an edit war brewing in Meher Baba's article. I tried correcting some technical details and part of the edits that I don't find reasonable but it was all reverted back immediately. I don't think warning an IP is any good, plus I think he uses also one or two newcomer names. Can you please take a look? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 11:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Idea for getting development of articles[edit]
Sorry mate I have no idea what you mean. Are you proposing a wikiproject to assess notbaility/importance of individuals or something? I've just found in my experience wikiprojects are a waste of time, most decision making is made between two or three individuals at best, although in practice it is useful as a portal as such for listing missing articles/what articles are needed... If you are saying that uneveness in source availability is a poor judge of notability for non anglo countries I agree. But there's nothing we can do about it. Unfortunately many notable articles get deleted by poor english speakers who start them and the new page patrollers mistake them for spam/adverts. Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Dunno. There are some countries like Chile which have downloadable national dictionaries of biography which could be processed and started and are a good indicator of notability but the notability system is a mess on here and is full of double standards. For instance the community voted to keep Ivy Bean as "notable" yet they deleted an article on one of Ser Amantio's Estonian painters who had an entry in the national encyclopedia/is a member of the national art academy. Whatever is decided it always ends up reflecting the bias of the community. 1.0 is a good idea but its an awfully difficult job assessing what is most notable and what is not. Obviously the core articles are easily identifiable but anything beneath that is often hazy. But a lot of core articles on here like province/state articles and that are barely beyond stubs and some small towns not only have GA -FA standard articles but have dozens of good articles on places within that town. What the project is lacking is real coordination. I despair everytime I propose something which is important how so few seem to care and want to collaborate. Recently I developed the Berat County article in the hope that the Albanian project would follow suite and get the core articles of the project up to at least start level but nobody showed any interest except my good friend Nvvchar, unrelated to the project. I find that most people get on with what they feel like and don't feel obligated to assess things. I think unless Jimbo starts paying a group of people to sort wikipedia out its only going to be a few people who struggle to try to make it change direction unless it is something which creates moral panic within the community and paranoia like the unreferenced BLPs and even that still has 25,000 unreferenced biographies... People put their names down for projects and tasks but how many actually consistently work together towards it? Very few. Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Nono, I asked the project if they would be interested in collaborating on the article and working as a team and then moving on to the next article. Certainly by writing a good article it would rarely mean that somebody would do another one. What I meant was the lack of interest in working as a group. Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah there'll be a huge country like Kazakhstan or Russia with a team of zero or 1 and then there will be a wikiproject like WikiProject Eastenders Buses or WikiProject Buffy the Vampire weapons with a team of 50 producing good articles....In practice any move towards a stronger encyclopedia by country is a good thing but we lack the numbers needed to provde a neutral insight into it I think. Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Well Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia looks pretty notable but a Lithuanian informed me that a lot of the articles are not particularly notable and it includes some low key biographies which should probably not be included on wikipedia. I guess all encyclopedias and antional dictionaries range in importance such like wikipedia, assessing it is even more difficult and time consuming I think.... Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Something like Category:Newspapers published in Burundi.. Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
As of yet you've failed to talk to me on a friendship level. I was concerned about you for months. I did ask you to email me numerous times. Its strange that I often don't get a reply from you but then I see your name pop up at the some forum commenting on my work. Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC) You might find this website useful. Good luck with that. You seme to have spent most of your wiki editing compiling lists or wikipedia work space pages. Maybe it would be more beneficial if you created lists in the mainspace. That would make it more likely for people to start them I think. Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
New DNB WikiProject[edit]
For information: I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, since the time has certainly come when there should be a place for collective discussion of the DNB adaptation effort. Please come and participate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Lists of names[edit]
My concern got resolved, thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Thank you, very much, for your kind words during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my efforts to improve the quality of the article, The Most Hated Family in America. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
WP Asia[edit]
Planning to start it next week - are you available for helping with the templates and things at all? SatuSuro 00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Very kind - I am thinking of week rather than day issues - I was hoping to start it in serious manner next week - if you were able to kick anything off at any time - it would be great - the main principle idea that I had in mind is to get the template and the main project page up and running by October. The death project (polinossis did most of that) and portal are the level I would like to get it visually by Christmas :) - I need to do most - it is the template tweaking I am not sufficiently skilled in - cheers - and thank you for your willingness to help SatuSuro 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting that is a very old portal - hadnt noticed it :| , I had envisaged the project to be a mother project to the existing projects - I do not want to twiddle with the defunct South Asia project at this stage - (in the very long term I think an oceania project as a co-ordinating and tagging project might be a 2011 project idea) - and File:Asiaportal.PNG looks good btw. As always the template for the project - and the hopefully WP Asiatagging shortcut isnt already taken by something else SatuSuro 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Continue the discussion?[edit]
Can you please continue your part in the discussion at Category talk:Hindu terrorism? If it is just left to Pectore and myself (and we are opposed to each other's opinion), then there will definitely be no consensus made. SilverserenC 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted[edit]
The request for mediation concerning Ebionites 2, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.
WikiCup 2010 September newsletter[edit]
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)