User talk:John Carter/Archives/2012/February

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

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
  • Byzantine Empire Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
  • Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts have not gone unnoticed

I don't know if you've received this one yet--you don't have an awards page. If you haven't, this is long overdue. – Lionel (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Christianity Barnstar
Great work with Christianity-related projects. – Lionel (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gopalanand Swami

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gopalanand Swami. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo work group

Hi there! I was rummaging around Category:Inactive project pages and I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Iglesia ni Cristo work group, of which you were a member. Since the work group is defunct, is there a need for any of its (see Category:Iglesia ni Cristo work group), subpages (see PrefixIndex) or affiliated pages (e.g., this one and this one) to be retained? Normally, I would want to keep the content for historical reference, but it appears that the work group never really got off the ground – it attracted only five members in three years and the only actual discussion on the talk page was about shutting down the project. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a ping to see if you've had a chance to think about this. Again, there's no rush; I'm posting mainly so that the section isn't archived quite yet. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hunnic Empire

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hunnic Empire. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chritianity proj

Hi John, Why have that discussion on his talk page rather than elsewhere. Perhaps we should have it on a subpage in your userspace so it will not get interrupted by personal messages.... But you do have valid points in that post. If you relocate it, I will be glad to comment. History2007 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingdom of God

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of God. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

Please adhere to talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG. Also, the number of editors involved in any discussion is not in and of itself necessarily at all relevant. Many articles attract POV pushers of some type or other, and it is often the case that the POV pushers are sometimes better informed about their minority or fringe POV than other editors are informed about the majority or non-fringe view. That criterion in and of itself means nothing. So, again, please adhere to WP:TPG and limit your comments on the article talk pages to comments which directly relate to the improvement of the article. As I have suggested there, filing an RfC as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment is one way to get a broader, perhaps less non-neutral perspective. However, WP:TE and other guidelines do indicate that tendentious editing can be and often is itself reason for sanctions of some sort against the editors involved. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tendencious editing can include unjustified deletions in articles supported by verifiable citations. Do you agree? Nobody has removed the majority view from the said article. However, the view that the passages are disputed is a sore point, and these passages are removed despite supporting verifiable sources used. Lung salad (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
James Carleton Paget, Clare K. Rothschild, Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert, J. Neville Birdsall, Steven Bowman, Tessa Rajak, Ken A. Olson are Biblical scholars. Lung salad (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

the exodus

I was wondering if you could comment on a current dispute on the exodus (Talk:The_Exodus#POV_issues). The article has a strong POV, and I tried to soften the bias a bit here [1] but that was reverted. The dispute is between me and a few editors who claim that the exodus is almost universally regarded (so much so that the point isn't even controversial) by biblical scholars/commentators as fictional. Certainly, among all scholars/commentators (even if you exclude fundamentalist and devotional commentators) this is simply not a true statement. You seem to be well versed in this topic so please see if you can help with this dispute.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do. I'm trying to explain that NOR means that we can't have an entire section in the article where the sources don't mention the Exodus. Qgs is busy canvassing as you can see to get editors to agree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear John Carter,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template

Hey John, how about getting that mop out of the closet: Template_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Logo.  ;-)
– Lionel (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Exodus

I moved the exodus discussion to Talk:The_Exodus#Discuss_the_edits. Please comment when you have a chance.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Berlin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Berlin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Troll

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Troll. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Josephus problems

WP:AN/I would seem to be a reasonable option at this point. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and do that for I am out of breath here quoting sources. Your help in selecting the right board to post on will be appreciated, for I am going to stop for a while. After all the reference checks we did among multiple editors, suddenly an unsourced item shows up and takes up time like this... Please select the right noticeboard to post on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the ANI post John. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WPX contest

You suggested that a contest would be beneficial. I agree. A contest is one of the best ways to improve articles and promote the project--which would increase membership. IMO a monthly contest would require too much administration. An annual contest would be more prestigious, like the WikiCup (WikiChalice? Yuk, yuk.)

  • The question is how to get more editors involved? I think recognition is the key. Barnstars are nice, but for something like this--doesn't quite cut the mustard. E.g. we could award the winner an interview in the Signpost. Another idea would be to add the current winner's name to {{WikiProject Christianity}}. If getting recognized on 40,000 talk pages doesn't get people to compete, I don't know what will.
  • How to get the word out? We can post a message on every WP:X and related-project member talk. That's over 1000 editors right there.

– Lionel (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Cease and Desist

Please Stop Bothering Me John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I bet you'd pay $100 for a waiver to WP:INVOLVED right about now, lol. – Lionel (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
JRF, you have been told repeatedly to stay off this page. Apparently, you find reading to be beyond your capacity. You also appear to have serious problems understanding policies and guidelines. If you persist in these irrational, unwarranted attacks of others, there is a very real chance that you might be subject to some form of sanctions. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with sourcing

Hi John Carter, a recently closed discussion concerning Kevin R.D. Shepherd as a reliable source for articles in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115 - Self published books) apart from deciding that Shepherd's books are no reliable sources, has also named the sources used in Meher Baba as not reliable. When I asked for the Peer review in 2006 I did mention quite clearly that the article had a problem with secondary sources, and yet the article moved on to GA. I am not sure if I miss something, but I have problems understanding what applies here and what not. Can you please help me in this? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 05:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ping

I think that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject_Conservatism would benefit from another WT:COUNCIL regular. It's yet another round of "these people shouldn't be permitted to collaborate on their areas of interest, much less to tag articles that interest them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Finding your user subpages

From User:John Carter/Religion reference, I found your comments at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard#Possible changes in subprojects (permanent link here), in which you said: "I seem to remember having created a subpage listing the various significant religion collections in the English world, but can't find it right now." If that subpage is in your user space, then you might find the following to be helpful. The second link performs the same function that the first link does, but it uses fewer characters in its wikicode.

See subpages
All pages with titles beginning with User:John Carter/

You can place either or both of those links anywhere in your user space. You can do likewise with the subpage search box. —Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections, but thanks for the info. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Is this along the lines of the newsletter you had in mind? – Lionel (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereal being

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ethereal being. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there WP:Bizzare?

Multiple editors have used the term "bizzare" here to refer to Lung Salad's edits. Harizotoh9 may post on ANI, but this is eating up time really fast. What does one do when an editor's behavior is bizzare, and he wants to dismiss the experts, and again asks for sources he had re-edited before? I think ANI must come in now, again. History2007 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI--don't shoot the messenger

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See section Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button". Drmies (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I received that message too John, but I see no need to do anything. No policy has been violated, given that the button has never been even used to date. And people routinely post on all project pages from physics to geology to ask for comments. What the button would have done is equivalent to the post on the project page by a person, but facilitated it. I see no big deal here, given the equivalence of the button to a post by a person. The button has not been used anyway, and has not even been implemented. Lionelt just attempted a testcase of it, that is all. If the button runs against policy, so does any post on any project page that asks for comment. I think in time all projects from chemistry to astronomy will get these buttons. I think it is good for all projects. But time will tell if they will all implement them. History2007 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
And by the way, I think you may have noticed the coincidence that invalidates the "yes man" assumption about such requests on project pages or buttons on project pages. Just because a request is made on a project page, it does not mean that project members will support it. A case in point was that about 2 hours before Eschoir complained on ANI (with bold text and all), Anupam posted on Wikiproject Christianity to ask for comments on Talk:Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations. Both of us went there and opposed Anupam, and suggested the deletion of the religious section. I am no "yes-man" and say what I think, and obviously neither are you. The only difference was that I said "Sorry Anupam" before arguing against him at length. So the whole idea of a post generating yes-men is incorrect. And of course, a similar post was also made on WikiProject Physics and a number of people came over from there. I think the Big Bang situation clearly shows that Eschoir's assumptions are incorrect. I will leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template

Talking of templates, Template_talk:Catholicism#Particular_Churches_and_liturgical_rites has been waiting for an update after discussion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Anglican Church of the Americas

Hi John--I have a query for you. I can't make heads or tails of all these Americans and their strange denominations, and I ran into this club, which appears to be affiliated with the "regular" Anglican church, but presumably with a difference. They're also known as The Church of the Alpha and the Omega (and you know, the more words in the name, the smaller the church) and seem to be based--either the whole church or just the Alpha-Omega one?--in Luverne, Alabama. But there's also churches in South America, and plenty of missionary activity (see this), which is hard to do, I guess, from Luverne... Anyway, I can't figure out exactly what they are. Google Books has little to offer (and I don't have access to the Encyclopedia of American religions), another suggestion of smallness. What I want to do is write the article for Michael Simmons, the archbishop (but archbishop of what?), but maybe you can help me write the article for the ACA along the way. Thanks in advance for whatever you can do for me. Oh, I'm going to ask another editor from the Anglican project as well; I hope you don't mind that I'll point the here, so I don't have to copy and paste, which would really hurt my reputation for originality. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Bland Simmons would certainly be notable for a bio anyway. "The Anglican Church of the Americas is an orthodox Anglican network of churches, ministries, dioceses, and provinces in the tradition of convergence theology" appears notable too, though I must admit I wasn't familiar, unless it's related to Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches 1995? Or via the Convergence Movement to Anglican Mission in the Americas?? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You tell me. I'm a recovering Catholic, and as far as I'm concerned we only come in two flavors (I don't count the orthodox churches, just to keep it simple, haha). See, I want to write him up, but I'm not even sure how to refer to his church besides the obvious, the name--I want to place him in a context. An archbishop of the RC church, I know what that means, but I don't know what this means. For all I know the church's headquarters is a double-wide. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
In ictu, do you want to have a go at him? This is his professional page: [2]. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
By all means. If I can add anything later I will. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to check Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions to see if it's mentioned there. If it is, the entry will probably also list enough sources to verify the group's notability. Regarding the bishop, I created some years ago an article (which even got DYK'd) about a minister who had been ordained by multiple different churches. I would guess he is probably included in a reference work of bishops as well, and that might indicate his background. I'll check that source too. Give me a few days, like till Monday, and I'll get back to you on that. But, in general, if we can find any information on the size of the group, adding information like Simmons is the leader, and (if true) consecrated bishop/archbishop of the (blue-link) Anglican Church of the Americas, a group of (number) based in (location)", would certainly seem to make sense. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I found several articles on the NewsBank database, all local to Alabama, about this church, many of which also significantly discuss Simmons. I would be more than happy to e-mail them at request. Still waiting to check Melton and other sources to determine whether I can also verify notability as per W:N, but I hope to do that shortly. Some days, unfortunately, other people are actually using teh copies of that book and others available to me. Of course, they are at academic libraries, and I suppose the students themselves might once in a while use them, but still.... ;) John Carter (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Occasionally I look at the little cards in the front to see how often books get checked out. All too often I'm the first one to do so. Thanks John, In ictu oculi, for helping out! John, if you like, just write him up--I don't need credit for it...(and I do so hate writing biographies). Drmies (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I wrote up Michael Simmons (clergyman). I would appreciate your help: I can't even see if they're Continuing Anglican movement or Anglican Communion. His scholarly credentials are decent enough for a stub, and I'm sure I can dig up more. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't get much further, other than that Anglican Province of the Good Shepherd is a continuant group outside Anglican Communion. I added some "see also" links, which you may want to remove. Alternatively wonder if there's a case for having the {Anglican realignment} side navbox on this and some similar bios? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You're the expert! Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Redesign of Christianity subproject pages

Hey John, I like the idea of updating the subprojects, but the WP:X page is in desperate need of updating itself. Most of the content is outdated, and it's huge and takes forever to load. With an updated WP:X page we could actually show the subprojects what the improvements would look like. – Lionel (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Conservative Churches of America

A Google search for Christian Conservative Churches of America revealed rather little specific information about this group, and one of the few pages that it revealed was User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements. Do you have a source for this page that would have anything on this group besides its name? Talkback or reply at my talk page, please. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, John Carter. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter/Archives/2012/February&oldid=1160938169"